Hayden and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 429

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 429
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2003/5

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re HANS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS
HAROLD) HAYDEN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr IR Way, Member
Date30 April 2004
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor determines that Hans Hayden suffers from war-caused generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence with date of effect 5 April 2001.

...................(Sgd)......................
IR Way
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – pension – generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence – reasonable hypothesis established connecting conditions with war service
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120, 102A, 196A, 196B
Re Parr and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 93
O’Neill v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1492
Re Robinson and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 894
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Re Hurn and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 907
Re Lees and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 98
Re Walsh and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 483
Re Webb and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 203
Re Peace and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1013
REASONS FOR DECISION

30 April 2004 Mr IR Way, Member

1.       This is an application by Hans Hayden for a review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 2 October 2001, affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) on 4 October 2002, which determined that the veteran does not suffer from service related Anxiety Disorder and Alcohol Abuse or Alcohol Dependence.
2. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (T1-T6) and other documentary evidence as follows:
§ Exhibit A1            Statement of Hans Hayden dated 6 June 2003
§ Exhibit A2            Statement of Hans Hayden dated 9 June 2003
§ Exhibit R1            Income support Pension Claim and Tax Statement
§ Exhibit R2            Report from Writeway Research Service Pty Ltd dated   31 October 2003

3.       The applicant was represented by Ms B Carter-Nicoll of Counsel, instructed by Sciacca’s Lawyers and Consultants and the respondent was represented by Mr D McAninly, Departmental Advocate. The applicant gave oral evidence. Dr May, Psychiatrist, gave evidence by telephone.
4.       The applicant was born on 30 July 1938 and served in the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) from 5 March 1958 to 5 May 1978 and rendered operational service as an Engine Fitter in Malaysia and Singapore from 11 September 1964 to 11 October 1964 He rendered eligible defence service from 7 December 1972 to May 1978. This matter is contested with respect to the circumstances of the applicant’s operational service. Whilst serving in Singapore the applicant was attached to 3 Squadron (Sabre jets) operating out of RAF bases at Changi and Tengah.
5.       The applicant’s accepted service related disability is bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus. His rejected disabilities are anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence or abuse, these being the subject of this appeal.
6.       The applicant’s hypothesis is that he experienced a severe psychosocial…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hayden and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Hayden and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 429
Case: [2004] AATA 429
Decision Date: 30 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hans Hayden, the applicant, brought a case against the Repatriation Commission regarding the denial of certain benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Hayden sought recognition of war-caused generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence, which he claimed were connected to his military service. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central legal issue was whether Hayden had established a reasonable hypothesis that his current conditions were caused by his war service, which is necessary to qualify for the benefits under the Act. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence presented and determine if the connection between Hayden's conditions and his military service was sufficiently substantiated.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that Hayden had provided a reasonable hypothesis linking his conditions to his war service. This conclusion was based on the medical evidence and the testimony that supported the claim that his service had a causal impact on his mental health and alcohol dependence. The Tribunal also considered relevant case law, such as Re Parr and Repatriation Commission, which emphasised the need for a reasonable hypothesis rather than absolute certainty. The Tribunal held that Hayden had met the necessary burden of proof under the Act by providing a reasonable hypothesis supported by credible evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision and substituted its own, determining that Hayden's conditions were indeed war-caused. The Tribunal found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the requisite link between Hayden's service and his current conditions, thus qualifying him for the benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal's decision provided clear reasoning and supported its conclusion with references to relevant statutes and precedents.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor determines that Hans Hayden suffers from war-caused generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence with date of effect 5 April 2001.

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.

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		HANS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HAROLD) HAYDEN