Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1055
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2001/787
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re GARY HASTED Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member Date24 October 2005
PlaceBrisbane
Decision (1) The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the Applicant's chronic dysthymic disorder is defence-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 11 December 1998.
(2) The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent for assessment and implementation in accordance with these Reasons for Decision.
....................[Sgd]..........................
SC Fisher
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS - Veterans Entitlement Act – defence-caused injury – chronic pain from orthopaedic injury resulting in depressive disorder – stress anxiety disorder – adjustment disorder – chronic dysthymic disorder – decision set aside and remitted.
Veteran’s Entitlements Act 1986 s120, 196
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy [1998] FCA 809.
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Smith v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 537
Re Buckham and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 174
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 365
Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Williamson and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1185
Palmer and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 2
Starcevich v Repatriation Commission (1987) 18 FCR 221
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 1200
Peacock v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1449
Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395
Ganley and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 427
March v E & MH Stramere Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506REASONS FOR DECISION
24 October 2005 Mr SC Fisher, Member Introduction and background
1. Mr Gary Hasted (the Applicant) served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 24 March 1972 to until 30 June 1993. The Applicant has a number of service-related medical conditions.
2. On 11 March 1999, the Applicant lodged with the Repatriation Commission (the Respondent) a formal claim for acceptance of liability for "stress anxiety disorder" (among other conditions). The Respondent treated this as a claim for an "adjustment disorder". On 29 March 2000, the Respondent refused the Applicant's claim for adjustment disorder. On 23 May 2000, the Applicant sought review of the 29 March 2000 rejection decision from the Veterans' Review Board. On 25 July 2001, the Veterans' Review Board affirmed the decision of the Respondent of 29 March 2000 in relation to the adjustment disorder. This chain of decisions led to the Applicant lodging an application for review with this Tribunal on 3 September 2001.
Jurisdiction
3. This appeal is governed by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Tribunal has jurisdiction in this appeal by virtue of sections 174 - 176 of…
Continue reading Hasted and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hasted and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1055
- Case
- [2005] AATA 1055
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicant's chronic dysthymic disorder was caused by his service in the Defence Force, as required by the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The applicant argued that his disorder was a direct result of his service, while the Commission contended that there was insufficient evidence to support this claim. The AAT was required to assess the medical evidence and determine whether the applicant's condition met the statutory criteria for a defence-caused injury.
In its decision, the AAT found that the evidence presented demonstrated a causal link between the applicant's service and his chronic dysthymic disorder. The Tribunal considered the medical reports and the applicant's testimony, and concluded that the condition was indeed defence-caused. The AAT set aside the original decision of the Commission and substituted its own decision, recognising the applicant's disorder as defence-caused with effect from 11 December 1998. The matter was remitted to the Commission for further assessment and implementation of the AAT's decision.
The final orders of the Tribunal were that the decision under review be set aside and replaced with a decision that the applicant's chronic dysthymic disorder was defence-caused, effective from the specified date. The Tribunal also directed the Commission to reassess and implement the matter in accordance with the reasons provided.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the Applicant's chronic dysthymic disorder is defence-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 11 December 1998.
(2) The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent for assessment and implementation in accordance with these Reasons for Decision.
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.