Hackett and Repatriation Commission

Case [2004] AATA 1347

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1347

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No Q2002/673

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION

)
Re THOMAS JAMES HACKETT

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr K S Levy, Member

Date17 December 2004

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..................[Sgd]............................

K S Levy
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – application for adjustment of pension – whether conditions of post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse / dependence are war caused – whether evidence raises “reasonable hypothesis” – whether incident a “severe stressor” – Condition of generalised anxiety disorder accepted but not war caused - Decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 5D, 6C, 7, 9, 13, 68, 70, 120, 120A, 196B, Schedule 2

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564; (1993) 30 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327; (1987) 12 ALD 798
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82; (1998) 49 ALD 193
Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 74 ALD 68

White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 663
Re Hillier and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334; (2003) 74 ALD 366

REASONS FOR DECISION

17 December 2004   Dr K S Levy, Member          

Introduction

1. The applicant, Thomas James Hackett, has applied under section 29(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 for review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board dated 25 June 2002.  That decision rejected a claim for adjustment to his pension for conditions of post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence/alcohol abuse, as being war-caused, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).

2.       He has been accepted for, and currently receives, 50% of the general rate of pension from 10 March 1999 as a result of the following conditions having been accepted cumulatively over time and which were regarded as service-related -

§  Bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss

§  Tinnitus

§  Past fracture carpal scaphoid left wrist

§  Osteoarthrosis of left knee

§  Chronic solar skin damage

3.       The current application is based on the contentions that the applicant’s claimed disabilities of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol dependence/alcohol abuse satisfy the relevant Statements of Principles (SoPs) and should be regarded as war-caused.  It is also claimed that the applicant could not obtain appropriate clinical management for PTSD and that this aggravated the clinical status of his PTSD during operational service.  In support of this claim, he states that he suffered a severe stressor whilst serving on HMAS Perth and that his increase in alcohol intake resulted from this experience.  As a consequence, if these claims are accepted, the…

Continue reading Hackett and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hackett and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1347
Case
[2004] AATA 1347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Hackett, sought an adjustment of his pension on the basis that his conditions of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse/dependence were war-caused. The Repatriation Commission refused his application, and the matter was appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT was required to determine whether Mr Hackett’s conditions were war-caused and, if so, whether they were severe stressors under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal also needed to assess whether the evidence raised a reasonable hypothesis that the conditions were war-caused and, if so, whether the incident constituted a severe stressor.

The AAT considered the evidence provided by Mr Hackett and the medical opinions submitted. It noted that while the condition of generalised anxiety disorder was accepted as war-caused, the same could not be said for PTSD and alcohol abuse/dependence. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not raise a reasonable hypothesis that these conditions were war-caused. Furthermore, even if they were war-caused, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the incident constituted a severe stressor as required by the Act. The AAT cited several authorities in reaching its decision, emphasising the need for a nexus between the war service and the claimed conditions, and the requirement for the stressor to be of a severe nature.

As a result, the AAT affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission to deny Mr Hackett's application for an adjustment of his pension. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant’s conditions met the statutory criteria for war-causation or that the incident in question was a severe stressor. Therefore, the original decision was upheld.

The Tribunal's decision is final, and Mr Hackett’s application for an adjustment of his pension has been dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.