Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1174
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/84
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION )
Re RONALD THOMAS HENDRIE Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms M J Carstairs, Member Date9 November 2004
PlaceRockhampton
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the applicant’s anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse or dependence are war-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 10 November 2002. The Tribunal remits the matter for assessment of rate of pension. .....................[Sgd].........................
M J Carstairs
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – pension – anxiety disorder – alcohol abuse or dependence – whether disease connected to operational service – definition of “severe psychosocial stressor”
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120, 120A
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (19980 83 FCR 82
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Re Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 707
Holthouse v Repatriation Commission (1982) 1 RPD 287
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 146
Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564REASONS FOR DECISION
9 November 2004 Ms M J Carstairs, Member 1. This is an appeal by Ronald Thomas Hendrie (the applicant) for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) dated 29 April 2003 which rejected the applicant’s claims for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol abuse or dependence. This decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) on 17 November 2003.
2. At the hearing in Townsville on 5 November 2004 the applicant was represented by Mr D Honchin of counsel, instructed by Purcell Taylor Lawyers and the respondent by Mr J Stoner, a departmental advocate.
3. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and exhibits A1-A3 for the applicant and R1-R3 for the respondent
BACKGROUND
4. The applicant served with the Australian Army from 4 October 1967 to 3 October 1969 after being called up for National Service. He deferred his call-up while he completed his apprenticeship as a chef in Brisbane. After his call-up he undertook general Army training before being allotted to service in Vietnam in the period 3 September 1968 to 27 August 1969. The applicant served as a cook with 161st (Independent) Reconnaissance Flight based at Nui Dat. This period was operational service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).
5. On 10 February 2003 the applicant claimed for a stress disorder. He had lodged two earlier claims for stress attacks on 30 June 1988 (T4 page 93) and 30 December 2000 (T4 pages 71-72) diagnosed on the basis of medical evidence obtained in the course of the two claims as dysthymic disorder with anxiety/depressive symptoms (first claim) and generalised anxiety disorder (second claim).…
Continue reading Hendrie and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hendrie and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1174
- Case
- [2004] AATA 1174
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the applicant's anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse or dependence constituted "disease" as defined in the Act, and if these conditions were connected to operational service in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant's experiences during service constituted a "severe psychosocial stressor" as per the legislative definition. The case hinged on interpreting the relevant statutory terms and applying these definitions to the facts of the applicant's service and post-service history.
The Tribunal examined the legislative framework and the case law precedents, including the decisions in Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Stoddart v Repatriation Commission, and Re Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission. It considered the applicant's service history, the onset and progression of their conditions, and the evidence presented regarding the connection between their service and the claimed disabilities. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse or dependence were indeed war-caused within the meaning of the Act, as they were connected to the severe psychosocial stressors experienced during operational service. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted its own, finding that the applicant's conditions qualified for a war-caused disability pension.
The Tribunal's final order was that the decision under review be set aside and replaced with a decision recognising the applicant's anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse or dependence as war-caused, effective from 10 November 2002. The matter was then remitted to the Repatriation Commission for reassessment of the pension rate.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the applicant’s anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse or dependence are war-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 10 November 2002. The Tribunal remits the matter for assessment of rate of pension.
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.