Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 925
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No D2004/19, D2005/13
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re COLIN HILL Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC and Senior Member M J Carstairs Date31 October 2006
PlaceBrisbane (heard in Darwin)
Decision A. In matter D2004/19, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
B. In matter D2005/13 the Tribunal:a) sets aside the decision under review (namely a decision of the respondent dated 11 July 2001) as it relates to the applicant’s claim for alcohol dependence; substitutes the decision that alcohol dependence is war caused with effect from 15 March 2000; and remits to the respondent the assessment of the rate of pension payable in respect of the condition;
b) in all other respects affirms the decisions under review.
...............Signed...............
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – invalidity service pension – impairment rating of at least 40 points – medical evidence that conditions suffered were permanent - able to undertake work for periods in excess of eight hours per week – not satisfied permanently incapacitated for work – decision under review affirmed
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – post traumatic stress disorder – alcohol dependence – depressive disorder – pathological gambling – not exposed to traumatic events required for diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder – not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no sufficient ground for determining alcohol dependence was war-caused – depressive disorder hypotheses not reasonable - hypothesis supporting pathological gambling speculative – decision in relation to claims of post traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder and pathological gambling affirmed – decision relating to alcohol dependence set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 13, 37(1), 119, 120(1)(3)(4), 120A(3),
Veterans’ Entitlements (Invalidity Service Pension – Permanent Incapacity for Work) Determination 1999
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2004) 207 ALR 470
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2005) 142 FCR 88
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1988) 83 FCR 82
Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] 86 ALD 62
Fenner v Repatriation Commission (2005) 218 ALR 122
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 134 FCR 392
Repatriation Commission v Law (1981) 147 CLR 635
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 188 ALR 756
REASONS FOR DECISION
31 October 2006 Deputy President P E Hack SC and Senior Member M J Carstairs Introduction
1.There are two applications before the Tribunal. In the first of them (D2004/19) the applicant, Colin Denis Hill, seeks a review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission made on 4 July 2001 to reject his claim for a service pension based on invalidity grounds. We will call this matter the invalidity service pension matter.
2.In the other application (D2005/13) Mr Hill seeks a review…
Continue reading Hill and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hill and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 925
- Case
- [2006] AATA 925
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Veterans' Entitlements (Invalidity Service Pension – Permanent Incapacity for Work) Determination 1999. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Mr. Hill was permanently incapacitated for work, if his conditions were war-caused, and if the Commission's findings regarding his claims were supported by the evidence. The court had to assess whether the Commission's decisions were legally sound and if they appropriately applied the relevant legislative provisions.
In its reasoning, the court found that the Commission's decision to affirm Mr. Hill's eligibility for an invalidity service pension was correct, as the evidence did not support a permanent incapacity for work despite his medical conditions. Regarding the disability pension, the court upheld the Commission's decision to deny claims for post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, and pathological gambling, but set aside the decision on alcohol dependence. The court concluded that Mr. Hill was not exposed to the traumatic events necessary for a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis, and the hypotheses regarding depressive disorder and pathological gambling were not substantiated by the evidence. However, the court found that the evidence supported a finding that Mr. Hill's alcohol dependence was war-caused.
The final orders of the court affirmed the Commission's decisions in most respects but required a reassessment of the pension rate for alcohol dependence, which was deemed war-caused. This nuanced approach ensured that Mr. Hill's entitlements were accurately reflected based on the evidence and applicable legal standards.
Orders
Orders of the court
A. In matter D2004/19, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
B. In matter D2005/13 the Tribunal:
a) sets aside the decision under review (namely a decision of the respondent dated 11 July 2001) as it relates to the applicant’s claim for alcohol dependence; substitutes the decision that alcohol dependence is war caused with effect from 15 March 2000; and remits to the respondent the assessment of the rate of pension payable in respect of the condition;
b) in all other respects affirms the decisions under review.
...............Signed...............
Deputy President
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.