Hill and Repatriation Commission - [2003] AATA 1151

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1151
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No D2002/5

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re KENNETH NORMAN HILL

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller
Date17 November 2003
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decisions to reject claims by Kenneth Norman Hill for disability pension for psychoactive substance abuse or dependence, post traumatic stress disorder and electrocution.

................SIGNED...............................
D.W. MULLER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – whether applicant experienced claimed stressor
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986: ss9, 120, 120A, 196B
REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Don Muller

1.Kenneth Norman Hill, the Applicant, claims that he suffers from psychoactive substance abuse or dependence (alcohol abuse) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He claims that his alcohol abuse and PTSD are war-caused injuries or diseases within the meaning of that term in section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), because they:
(a)Resulted from an occurrence that happened while he was rendering operational service; or
(b)Arose out of, or were attributable to his eligible war service; or
(c)Were contributed to in a material degree by, or were aggravated by, his eligible war service after he suffered or contracted them.

2.Mr. Hill also made a claim for a disability he called “electrocution”. He does not in fact suffer from any injury or disease called electrocution but he claims that during his service in the Royal Australian Navy, he was electrocuted, and that as a result of that experience he began to experience the beginnings of alcohol abuse and PTSD, which were later aggravated by an inability to obtain appropriate clinical management and also by experiencing a later stressful event.
3.Mr. Hill’s claim, which was lodged on 24 September 1997, was for a pension under s.13 of the Act in respect of the three conditions mentioned above namely, (1) PTSD; (2) alcohol abuse; and (3) electrocution. His claim was rejected by the Repatriation Commission on 14 January 1998, by the Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB) on 18 September 1998, and by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 20 November 2000 (differently constituted to this Tribunal).
4.The matter went on appeal to the Federal Court, firstly to a single Judge, and then to the Full Federal Court, Black CJ, Drummond and Kenny JJ. The Full Court ordered that the decision of the AAT made on 20 November 2000 be set aside to the extent that the Tribunal decided that Mr. Hill’s PTSD is not war-caused and his alcohol abuse is not war-caused, and, further ordered that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for further hearing (with or without additional evidence).
5.On the re-hearing of this matter, Mr. Hill’s representative did not lead any further evidence from him. He suggested that the Tribunal refer to the materials and transcript of the previous hearing, plus the summary of Mr. Hill’s case contained in the Full Court’s reasons for judgment.
6.This Tribunal heard further evidence from two psychiatrists, Drs. Parker and Brown.

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 Hill and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Hill and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1151
Case: [2003] AATA 1151
Decision Date: 17 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kenneth Norman Hill, the applicant, sought a disability pension on the grounds of psychoactive substance abuse or dependence, post traumatic stress disorder and electrocution. The Repatriation Commission, the respondent, rejected his claims. The dispute was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The primary legal issues for the court were whether the applicant experienced the claimed stressors and whether these stressors constituted a psychiatric injury warranting a disability pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The court examined the applicant's service records, medical reports, and other relevant evidence to determine the existence and impact of the claimed stressors. It also considered the statutory requirements for a psychiatric injury to qualify for a pension.

The court concluded that the applicant did not experience the claimed stressors. It found that the applicant's claims were not supported by the evidence. The medical evidence did not establish that the applicant had a psychiatric injury as a result of his service. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's claims were not consistent with the medical evidence and the circumstances of his service. The court also found that the applicant's claims were not supported by the evidence of other witnesses. The applicant's claims were rejected on the basis that they were not substantiated by the evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the Repatriation Commission to reject the applicant's claims for a disability pension. The Tribunal found that the Commission's decisions were reasonable and based on the evidence. The Tribunal held that the applicant had not established that he experienced the claimed stressors or that these stressors constituted a psychiatric injury warranting a disability pension. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims for a disability pension for psychoactive substance abuse or dependence, post traumatic stress disorder and electrocution.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions to reject claims by Kenneth Norman Hill for disability pension for psychoactive substance abuse or dependence, post traumatic stress disorder and electrocution.

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		KENNETH NORMAN HILL