Hoogkamer and Repatriation Commission

[2003] AATA 1318

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1318

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No Q2001/568

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		HARRY HOOGKAMER

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION 

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr O Rinaudo, Member

Date22 December 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

....................(Sgd).....................

O Rinaudo
  Member 

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – disability pension – whether applicant’s conditions were caused by his war service – PTSD – generalised anxiety – depressive disorder – alcohol abuse / dependence – diagnosis – whether applicant has suffered a severe stressor – whether reasonable hypothesis established

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, ss 9, 120, 120A, 196B

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Re Slattery and Repatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 90
Re Cranage and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 1119
Re Mulvaney and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 535
Re Budworth and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 127
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
O’Neil v Repatriation Commission (2001) 24 AAR 290
Re Hyland and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 597
Re Hurn and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 907

REASONS FOR DECISION

22 December 2003  Mr O.Rinaudo, Member

1. This is an application by Harry Hoogkamer (“the applicant”) for a review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board, dated 8 June 2001, which determined that the applicant suffers from generalised anxiety disorder with alcohol dependence, and not from post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). The Board found that the applicant’s generalised anxiety disorder with alcohol dependence was not causally related to his eligible service within the meaning of section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”).  In reaching that decision, the Board varied a decision of the Repatriation Commission, dated 20 October 2000, which had refused the applicant’s claim for PTSD.

2. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T6) and documentary evidence as follows:

§Exhibit 2            Applicant’s statement dated 16 November 2001

§Exhibit 3            Applicant’s supplementary statement dated 13 May 2002

§Exhibit 4            Report of Dr Brian Kimbell dated 24 June 2002

§Exhibit 5            Report of Dr Mulholland dated 26 March 2002

§Exhibit 6            Transcript of Veterans’ Review Board proceedings

§Exhibit 7            Report of Professor John McCarthy dated 2 July 2002

3.        The applicant was represented by Mr A Harding of Counsel and the respondent was represented by Mr J Stoner, a Departmental Advocate.  The applicant gave oral evidence, as did Professor McCarthy. 

4.       The applicant’s non-service related disabilities are:

§Generalised anxiety disorder with alcohol dependence;

§Alcohol  dependence or alcohol abuse; and

§Acoustic neuroma.

5.       The applicant was born on 5 September 1948.  He served as a National Serviceman in the Australian Army from 22 April 1970 to 9 December 1971, including operation service in Vietnam from 10 November 1970 to 7 October 1971.

6.       The applicant served in 1 Psychological Operations Unit where he was involved in printing photographs and statements of captured or…