Hogno and Repatriation Commission

[2010] AATA 306

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL                 )

)No: 2008/3808

Veterans' Appeals Division  )

Re: Dennis Hogno
Applicant

And: Repatriation Commission
Respondent

Order to amend written decision

TRIBUNAL:             Senior Member Jill Toohey

DATE:                      23 July 2010

PLACE:                   Sydney

1.On 29 April 2010, the Tribunal published a decision and written reasons in this proceeding.

2.The Tribunal is satisfied that that there is an obvious error in the text of the decision and the written statement of reasons and directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision from:

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

so that it now reads:

The Tribunal varies the decision under review by deciding that the veteran's anxiety disorder is war-caused and otherwise affirms the decision under review.

3.Paragraph 69 of the written statement of reasons is also amended to reflect the above wording. 

.......................[sgd]............................

J Toohey

Senior Member

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 306

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/3808

Veterans' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		Dennis Hogno

Applicant

And Repatriation Commission

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Jill Toohey
Dr Maxwell Thorpe, Member

Date29 April 2010

PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..................[sgd]................................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENT - special rate pension – alcohol dependence – anxiety disorder – cardiomyopathy – whether veteran suffered from alcohol dependence – whether alcohol dependence and anxiety war-caused – Tribunal satisfied that reasonable hypothesis raised in relation to anxiety disorder – Tribunal satisfied that anxiety disorder war-caused - reasonable hypothesis raised in connection with alcohol dependence but Tribunal satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that condition was not war-caused - not satisfied that veteran suffered from cardiomyopathy -  not satisfied that veteran ceased employment for reasons related to war-caused condition alone – decision under review affirmed

Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 – s.120, s.24

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9AAR 534

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47

REASONS FOR DECISION

19 April 2010	Senior Member Jill Toohey Dr Maxwell Thorpe, Member
Background

1.      Dennis Hogno served in the Australian Army from May 1958, when he was sixteen years old, until May 1966.  He served at Butterworth in Malaya from 14 January to 20 October 1965, which period is operational service for the purposes of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).

2.      Mr Hogno receives a disability pension at 100 per cent of the general rate for accepted conditions of atrial fibrillation, sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus, ischaemic heart disease, impotence, tinea and chronic bronchitis.

3.      Mr Hogno claims that events which occurred while he was in Malaya led to an increase in his drinking and to an anxiety disorder.  He claims a special rate pension on the ground that war-caused alcohol dependence and anxiety disorder render him incapable of remunerative work.  He claims also to have war-caused cardiomyopathy. 

4.      The Repatriation Commission (the Commission) maintains that Mr Hogno’s drinking was well-established by the time he went to Malaya and was not war-caused.  The Commission does not dispute that Mr Hogno has an anxiety disorder but maintains that none of the events that occurred while he was in Malaya constituted a stressor for the purposes of any of the relevant Statements of Principle (SOPs) concerning alcohol dependence, or anxiety disorder or related conditions.

5.      In any event, the Commission says, Mr Hogno is not entitled to a pension at the special rate because he ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than war-caused incapacity.

The issues

6.      We have to determine:

(i)        whether Mr Hogno suffers from war-caused alcohol dependence;

(ii)       whether he suffers from war-caused anxiety disorder.

7.      If the answer to (i) or (ii) is affirmative, then we have to determine:

(iii)whether, by reason of one or both condition(s) alone, Mr Hogno is rendered incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week; and

(iv)whether he is prevented by that accepted condition(s) alone from engaging in remunerative work.

8.      Mr Hogno’s claim that he has war-caused cardiomyopathy raises a threshold question, being whether he in fact has that condition.  The Veterans Review Board accepted he has cardiomyopathy but was not satisfied that it was war-caused.  The Commission maintains in these proceedings that Mr Hogno does not have cardiomyopathy. 

9.      Mr Hogno does not press the claim of cardiomyopathy in connection with his claim for special rate pension but seeks to have it determined because it may have implications in future for any claim by his wife for a war widow’s pension.  We have to determine:

(v)whether Mr Hogno suffers from cardiomyopathy;

(vi)if so, whether it is war-caused.

Standard of proof

10.     As Mr Hogno had operational service, the standard of reasonable hypothesis applies in determining whether any injury or disease is war-caused.  In applying that standard, we are required to follow the steps set out in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 at 97.

11.     By s 120(1) of the Act, we must determine that Mr Hogno’s injury or disease was war-caused unless we are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination.  We shall be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt if the material before us does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting his incapacity with his service: s 120(3).  

12.     For the purposes of s 120(3), a hypothesis connecting the injury or disease of a veteran with the circumstances of his service will be reasonable only if there is in force a relevant SOP that upholds the hypothesis: s120A (3). 

13.     Whether Mr Hogno suffers from cardiomyopathy is to be determined on the balance of probabilities: Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622. Whether he is entitled to a special rate pension is also to be determined to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal: s 120(4).

Does Mr Hogno suffer from war-caused alcohol dependence

Evidence about Mr Hogno’s drinking

14.     The extent of Mr Hogno’s alcohol consumption at different times was not always clear from the evidence but he has undoubtedly drunk a great deal at times before, during and since, his service in Malaya. 

15.     In an alcohol questionnaire completed in March 2001, Mr Hogno stated that he took up drinking in 1960 while at Holsworthy Barracks, due to peer pressure; he would drink eight to ten schooners of beer on weekdays and 15 or 16 schooners on weekends.  In oral evidence, Mr Hogno clarified that he would drink on three or four weekdays only and his drinking reduced around 1962 when he met his first wife but, even then, he would drink about eight schooners on one or two nights a week.

16.     In the same questionnaire, and in oral evidence, Mr Hogno said his drinking changed in 1965 when he went to Malaya.  He had always drunk beer but Australian beer was not available in Malaya and the local beer would quickly become warm in the tropical heat.  He changed to whiskey and started drinking between three-quarters of a bottle, and a full bottle, each day. 

17.     Mr Hogno’s estimate of how much he drank in Malaya has varied at times but he conceded in cross-examination that he had a well-established pattern of heavy drinking before he went there and was drinking heavily from soon after he arrived.  The Commission concedes that the evidence points to an increase in his drinking while in Malaya.

18.     After Mr Hogno returned from Malaya, he preferred whiskey but would occasionally drink beer.  His drinking has varied since he left the army although how much he has drunk, or not, at different times is not always clear from the evidence.  He gave evidence that he was drinking up to a bottle of scotch a day after he returned from Malaya and his marriage broke down within weeks.  In May 1966, he was discharged from the Army after being convicted of a civil offence which he attributes to his drinking.

19.     From 1974 to 1981, Mr Hogno drank very heavily.  From about 1982, after he married again and his daughter was born, to about 1987, he was binge-drinking.  From around 1987, when his second marriage ended, to 1993, he was drinking three-quarters of a bottle of scotch a day.  Around 1995, his doctor told him to stop drinking on account of his heart which he did although he would still drink wine or beer from time to time.

20.     Mr Hogno continues to have several drinks several times a year (“four to six stubbies every couple of months”).  There is nothing to suggest that he drinks between these occasions and his wife confirmed in evidence that she has not seen him drunk since 1995. 

Does Mr Hogno suffer from alcohol dependence

21.     The current SOP is No 1 of 2009 for Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse.  It is in terms similar to SOP No 76 of 1998 which was in force at the time of the Commission’s decision.  For present purposes, they are virtually identical in that each refers to diagnostic criteria of a maladaptive pattern of alcohol use marked by features such as tolerance, withdrawal and persistent desire for alcohol (alcohol dependence); and recurrent failure to fulfil major obligations at work and home, and continued use despite persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems cause or exacerbated by effects of alcohol (alcohol abuse).

22.     For about seven years after his discharge, Mr Hogno worked in a clerical position until he was dismissed for spending too much time at the pub near work.  He then worked for Caltex for 18 years.  At times during his employment, he was having two or three drinks at lunchtime and three-quarters of a bottle of scotch at a club after work.  His work was apparently not affected; by all accounts, he was well-regarded and was promoted to office manager in charge of seven staff.  He left Caltex when he accepted a redundancy.  There is no suggestion that he left for reasons related to his drinking.  He subsequently worked in other positions until 2002 during which time his drinking reduced considerably and virtually stopped. 

23.     Dr Robert Lewin, consultant psychiatrist, has diagnosed Mr Hogno as suffering alcohol dependence “which went into remission in 2003”.  Dr Anthony Durrell, consultant psychiatrist, describes him as suffering “alcohol dependence disorder - currently in partial remission – 4-6 stubbies every couple of months”.  Dr Durrell gave evidence to the effect that, once dependent on alcohol, a person remains so for the rest of their life and to resume drinking inevitably leads to a return to florid alcohol dependence.  He describes Mr Hogno as managing alcohol “in a very precarious way”, hence his reference to “partial remission”. 

24.     Mr Hogno submits that we should accept Dr Lewin’s and Dr Durrell’s diagnoses of alcohol dependence “in remission” and accept that he suffers from alcohol dependence.

25.     The Commission maintains that the combination of Mr Hogno’s ability to hold down a responsible job for 18 years and be promoted, his ability to control his excessive drinking when told to by his doctor, and his ability to drink several times each year now without resuming heavy drinking, means that he does not in fact suffer from alcohol dependence or abuse. 

26.     What it means to have alcohol dependence “in remission” opens a debate on which there are medical and philosophical differences which we are not going to settle, especially on the limited evidence we have.  Certainly, the factors cited by the Commission about Mr Hogno’s use of alcohol appear somewhat at odds with alcohol dependence as defined in the SOP.  However, we are prepared to accept that Mr Hogno suffers from alcohol dependence; whether it is in “remission” does not make a material difference.  

27.     Allowing that Mr Hogno has an alcohol dependence, the evidence points strongly to him having that condition before he went to Malaya and before any of the incidents on which he relies.  However, for the reasons set out below, even if we were satisfied that Mr Hongo suffers from war-caused alcohol dependence, we are not satisfied that he is entitled to special rate pension.

Does Mr Hogno suffer from war-caused anxiety disorder

28.     In June 2004, Dr Karl Koller, consultant psychiatrist, diagnosed Mr Hogno as suffering from Generalised Anxiety Disorder.  In August 2006, Dr Graham Altman, consultant psychiatrist, reported that he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Generalised Anxiety Disorder.  In December 2007, Dr Durrell diagnosed Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder secondary to the Anxiety Disorder.  In June 2009, Dr Lewin diagnosed chronic Anxiety Disorder “best described as Generalised Anxiety Disorder”.

29.     The Commission does not dispute, and we are satisfied, that Mr Hogno has an anxiety disorder.

30.     Mr Hogno was referred for treatment for depression in about 2003.  He first saw Dr Durrell in early 2008 and still sees him every one to two months, more frequently if he needs more support.  Dr Durrell considers the most likely time of onset of his anxiety disorder to be during his service in Malaya, in particular in the days to weeks following the motor vehicle accident (see below).

31.     Dr Lewin reported in June 2009 that there was clinical evidence of an anxiety disorder beginning around the time Mr Hogno returned from Malaya.  This was apparently based on Mr Hogno’s report that he had symptoms of anxiety from the period of service onwards and throughout the entire intervening period.

32.     Mr Hogno maintains that three incidents while he was in Malaya led to his anxiety disorder as well as to an increase in his drinking.

33.     The incident on which Mr Hogno principally relies occurred when he was a passenger in a Land Rover being driven by another soldier.  He cannot recall much of what happened but the vehicle rolled over and he found himself upside down.  He recalls seeing two Asian faces peering at him from under a street light.  He cannot recall how he got out of the vehicle.  He injured his left elbow and somehow got to hospital where gravel was removed from his wound and it was stitched.  He was not admitted.  He does not recall having time off work.  Although this incident cannot be independently verified from Army records, there is no reason to doubt that it occurred.

34.     The second incident was an occasion when Mr Hogno saw severely wounded soldiers arriving by ambulance at the Army hospital from the nearby war in Vietnam.  Mr Hogno cannot recall why he was at the hospital but think it may have been to give blood.  He saw seven or eight Vietnam casualties being admitted to hospital, some on stretchers, some walking; some had had their wounds dressed already and he did not see any blood. He did not know any of the men personally and, at the time, did not know they were Australians but he learned they had been wounded in Vietnam and were being flown in for treatment.  This was the first time he saw evidence of action and realised the danger of war, and he found it “confrontational”.

35.     The third incident happened when Mr Hogno saw a soldier’s coffin being removed from a military aircraft.  His unit was there to escort the coffin.  He did not know whose it was and he was not involved in the burial.  He agrees that nothing about his incident constituted a threat to himself but says that seeing the coffin “hammered home” how serious the conflict was in Vietnam.

Statements of Principles

36.     The current SOP concerning Anxiety Disorder is No 101 of 2007.  Anxiety Disorder is defined to include Generalised Anxiety Disorder.  SOP No 1 of 2000 concerning Generalised Anxiety Disorder was in force at the time of the Commission’s decision.

37.     In SOP No 101 of 2007, the relevant factor which must exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised is:

6(a)(ii) experiencing a category 1A stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder  

38.     “A category 1A stressor" means one or more of the following severe traumatic events:

(a)      experiencing a life-threatening event;

(b)being subject to a serious physical attack or assault including rape and sexual molestation; or

(c)being threatened with a weapon, being held captive, being kidnapped, or being tortured;

39.     The relevant factor in SOP No 1 of 2000 is:

5 (a)(ii)experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder

“severe psychosocial stressor” means an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault (including sexual assault), major illness or injury, experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems.

40.     Mr Hogno says the motor vehicle accident was a life-threatening event and constitutes a category 1A stressor.  Alternatively, it was a severe psychosocial stressor within the meaning of SOP No 1 of 2000.  He does not claim, and the evidence does not suggest, that he experienced either of the other incidents as a life-threatening event.

41.     In oral evidence, Mr Hogno described the accident as “surreal” and said he felt very frightened by it.  He experienced after effects including flashbacks and loss of sleep.  Dr Altman reports that Mr Hogno told him he thought he was going to die.  Dr Lewin reports that Mr Hogno was “extremely frightened” by the accident.

42.     Mr Hogno claims he drank more after the accident; the vision of the faces peering at him would recur, and he could not sleep well.  He started to drink more and would stay at the canteen each day until closing time.

43.     Dr Durrell’s evidence was that “combination of heightened psychosocial stress, of a war zone, coupled with toxic regular alcohol consumption in the setting of a relatively young nervous system” gave rise to Mr Hogno’s anxiety disorder and depression.

44.     Mr Hogno maintains that the test for whether an event is life-threatening is subjective, and is objective only insofar as an event must be capable of being experienced as life-threatening.  In our view that tends to give too much weight to the subjective experience of an event as “life-threatening”.  However, the evidence in this case points to a motor vehicle accident that had the potential to be life-threatening, even if it turned out not to be particularly serious.  The evidence points to Mr Hogno feeling that he was going to die and to the onset of anxiety disorder while he was still in Malaya or shortly after his return.  In our view, the hypothesis raised in relation to Mr Hogno’s anxiety disorder is reasonable.

45.     Alternatively, we find the hypothesis raised to be reasonable because it conforms with SOP No 1 of 2000 in that the evidence points to the accident as a severe psychosocial stressor.  We note that Dr Lewin did not consider that the factors for severe psychosocial stressor were made out.  However, considering all of the evidence, we are satisfied that the evidence points to an identifiable occurrence that evoked feelings of substantial distress in Mr Hogno and that a reasonable hypothesis is raised.

46.     There is nothing in the evidence before us that would satisfy us, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Hogno’s anxiety disorder is not war-caused.   

47.     Mr Hogno’s claim in relation to alcohol dependence rests on the same incidents.  The relevant SOPs are No 1 of 2009 concerning Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse and SOP No 76 of 1998 concerning Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse.

48.     In SOP No 1 of 2009, Mr Hogno relies on factor 6(a): having a clinically significant psychiatric condition at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse; and factor 6(b): experiencing a category 1A stressor within the five years before the onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.  In SOP No 76 of 1998 he relies on factor 5(a): suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse; and factor 5(b): experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.

49.     “Experiencing a severe stressor” in SOP No 76 of 1998 means the person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with, an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person’s or other people’s physical integrity, which event or events might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror.

50.     The SOPs also include factors in relation to worsening of alcohol dependence or abuse. 

51.     Allowing that Mr Hogno suffers from alcohol dependence, for the reasons we have given in relation to his anxiety disorder, we are satisfied that a reasonable hypothesis is raised by the material before us connecting his alcohol dependence with his service.  However, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this condition is not war-caused. 

52.     Mr Hogno concedes that he had a heavy drinking habit before he went to Malaya.  We are satisfied that his drinking increased within a short time of arriving in Malaya when he effectively exchanged his beer intake for whiskey.  We take into account that the alcohol questionnaire makes no reference to the accident (or any other stressor) as a reason for his increased drinking.  Mr Hogno gave evidence that he drank more after the accident but the weight of the evidence is that he had already reached a level of drinking prior to the accident that he maintained on and off for many years.  If his drinking did increase after the accident, we are satisfied that any increase was minimal and immaterial. 

53.     We are not satisfied that Mr Hogno’s alcohol dependence is war-caused.

Does Mr Hogno have war-caused cardiomyopathy

54.     Dr John Macauley, cardiologist, first saw Mr Hogno on his admission to hospital in 1993 with signs of cardiac failure.  In a report dated 8 October 2001, Dr Macauley noted that Mr Hogno had been admitted to hospital in 1987 because of atrial fibrillation.  He concluded Mr Hogno had a “history of cardiomyopathy probably related to ethanol abuse and tachycardia-induced [left ventricular] dysfunction from uncontrolled [atrial fibrillation]”.

55.     Professor Michael O’Rourke is an expert in cardiovascular medicine.  He reviewed Mr Hogno’s medical records and has provided a written report and oral evidence.  Professor O’Rourke thinks the term “cardiomyopathy” is used loosely.  Based on the tests performed on Mr Hogno, he found no evidence of significant coronary artery disease and thinks his symptoms are predominantly from atrial fibrillation.  In particular, Professor O’Rourke does not think Mr Hogno has cardiomyopathy as defined in SOP No 23 of 2007 concerning that condition.

56.     We prefer the evidence of Professor O’Rourke, who has had the opportunity recently of reviewing Mr Hogno’s history, and whose evidence was tested before the Tribunal, to Dr Macauley’s written report from 2001.

57.     We are not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Hogno has cardiomyopathy.  It follows that he cannot have war-caused cardiomyopathy.

Special rate pension

58.     Section 24 of the Act provides for a special rate pension for veterans who are totally and permanently incapacitated from undertaking remunerative work.  At issue is whether Mr Hogno satisfies s 24(1)(b) and (c) which require that:

(b)the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and

(c)the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity.

59.     The evidence is that Mr Hogno worked for Caltex for 18 years until around 1992 and left when he was offered a redundancy.  Caltex then offered him consultancy work for several months.  He then worked in an accounts payable position for another company for around 15 months, then for TNT until around 1996.  After that, he worked for Patricks Stevedores in an accounts payable position but found dealing with creditors too stressful.  He also found the one-hour drive to and from work on a busy route was stressful and there was tension at home over his children from an earlier marriage.  He decided to reduce his working hours.  He resigned from his last job in February 2002.  He registered with an employment agency and had several interviews but nothing came of them. 

60.     Mr Hogno gave evidence that he and his wife decided to change their lifestyle for something with better hours and less travelling.  They decided to move south, out of the city, and to start a business together.  In about 2000 he had completed a two-year certificate in accountancy at TAFE, which he thought would give him a good grounding, and his wife had a background in administrative work. 

61.     Mr Hogno gave evidence that he always intended to work to help support his family.  He could not afford to retire because they had a young daughter.  He did not have in mind to look for employment when they moved south because he and his wife planned to go into business.  They considered possibilities including opening a hair salon with a friend.  That did not work out because of the friend’s family commitments.  They considered at setting up an accountancy business.  They considered a Starlight Foundation franchise; Mr Hogno discussed this with the Commission and learned it would not affect his pension so decided to pursue the idea.  He and his wife were on the verge of taking it on when they found there was more to it than they realised and they also came to realise they could not work together. 

62.     In 2007, Mr Hogno’s wife decided to buy a post office licence.  She gave evidence that he tried to help out but they could not work together; he would make mistakes at work and upset customers and, in the end, she had to insist he stop work.  He has not worked since but helps his wife out from time to time.

63.     If some factor other than war-caused incapacity plays a part in preventing a veteran from continuing to undertake remunerative work, he or she will not meet s 24(1)(c).  The test is to be applied “with an eye to reality”:  Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9AAR 534 per Burchett J at 539. See also Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47 in which the Full Court said:

The language of s 24(1)(c) of the Act directs attention to the question of whether incapacity from the relevant condition alone prevents a veteran from continuing to undertake remunerative work.  The provision does not contemplate that other factors are only to be taken into account if they, of themselves, prevent the veteran from working.  The decision-maker is required to take into account any factor that plays a part or contributes to a veteran’s being prevented from continuing to engage in remunerative work. 

64.     Section 24 (2) relevantly provides that, for the purposes of s 24(1)(c), a veteran who is incapacitated from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both.

65.     Mr Hogno had been engaged for many years in what might broadly be described as administrative work.  He also had accountancy skills which he hoped to use.  We accept that he found accounts payable work stressful and that there were other stressors at home and driving to work but they are the kind of stresses that lead many people to seek a change of lifestyle.  The evidence is that he intended to keep working and to use those skills, but in a less stressful occupation. 

66.     We find that Mr Hogno did not cease to engage in remunerative employment because of his anxiety disorder alone.  That a number of business possibilities did not eventuate was attributable to a range of factors other than his anxiety disorder. 

67.     We note, for completeness, that even if we are wrong about Mr Hogno’s alcohol dependence and it is a war-caused condition, the evidence is that he had all but stopped drinking by the time he ceased employment.  There is no evidence to suggest that alcohol played any part in the reason he ceased employment or has not worked since. 

Conclusion

68.     For the reasons set out above:

(i)         we are satisfied that Mr Hogno’s anxiety disorder is war-caused;

(ii)it is arguable that Mr does not have alcohol dependence but, allowing that he does, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this condition is not war-caused;

(iii)we are not satisfied that Mr Hogno suffers from cardiomyopathy;

(iv)we are not satisfied that Mr Hogno qualifies for special rate pension because he ceased work for reasons other than his war-caused condition.

69.     We affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the 69 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Jill Toohey and Dr Thorpe, Member.

Signed: .......................[sgd]..........................................
  Associate: Diana Weston

Date of Hearing  25 February 2010, 26 February 2010 and 11 March 2010 

Date of Decision  29 April 2010
Counsel for the Applicant         Mr M Vincent
Counsel for the Respondent     Mr G.L. Purcell