Hoogkamer and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 131

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 131

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/679

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		HARRY HOOGKAMER

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr E K Christie, Member

Date14 February 2005  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution thereto decides that Mr Hoogkamer’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder was “war caused”.  The Tribunal makes a direction that the respondent now consider the implications of this decision with respect to determining the degree of incapacity of Mr Hoogkamer from his accepted service-related disabilities and, in turn, the appropriate rate of pension entitlements.

...........[Sgd].........

E K Christie
  MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS AFFAIRS – reasonable hypothesis – Generalised Anxiety Disorder and operational service – severe psychosocial stressor

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s9, 119, 120, 120A

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 518; (1987) 12 ALD 389
Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 41 ALD 212
Stoddart v Repatriation [2003] FCA 334; (2003) 74 ALD 366
Repatriation Commission vGorton (2001) 65 ALD 609
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408; (1992) 29 ALD 1
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564; (1993) 30 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCFCA 192
Dixon v Repatriation Commission (1999) 29 AAR 235; (1999) 59 ALD 315
Repatriation Commission v Whetton (1991) 24 ALD 690
Brew v Repatriation Commission  (1999) 56 ALD 403

REASONS FOR DECISION

14 February 2005     Dr E K Christie, Member

1.      On 19 August 2004 the Federal Court issued the following Consent Order:

“1.       ….

2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 22 December 2003 (the ‘decision’) be set aside, only in so far as it concerned the issue whether or not the applicant’s condition of Generalised Anxiety Disorder was caused by the applicant’s war service, within the meaning of ss 9, 120(3) and 120A(3) of the Veterans’ entitlements Act 1986.

3.In respect of all other issues, save for the issue identified in order 2 above, the decision is affirmed.

4.The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law, such rehearing to be limited to the issue whether or not the applicant’s condition of Generalised Anxiety Disorder was caused by the applicant’s war service, within the meaning of ss 9, 120(3) and 120A(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

5.        …”

2.      At the hearing, Harry Hoogkamer was represented by Mr A Harding of Counsel.  Miss E Ford of Counsel represented the Repatriation Commission.

3.      At the hearing the Tribunal had in evidence before it the “Appeal Papers (Exhibit R1)” comprising the:

(A) Documents before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

(B) Transcript of Proceedings before the AAT

(C) Final Decision and Reasons for Decision

(D) Appeals Documents, and

(E) Certificate of Examination, as well as the various documents tendered by the parties.