[2014] AATA 264
Division VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION File Number
2013/3476
Re
Howard Turner
APPLICANT
And
Repatriation Commission
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Dr M Denovan, Member
Date 2 May 2014 Place Brisbane The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................Sgd.............................................
Dr M Denovan, Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Benefits and entitlements – Eligibility for pension – No connection between eligible defence service and condition – No entitlement to pension – Decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120(4), 120B
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Statement of Principles concerning Osteoarthritis: No. 14 of 2010 (as amended by Instrument 36 of 2011)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr M Denovan, Member
2 May 2014
The applicant in these proceedings is Mr Howard Turner. Mr Turner served in the
Royal Australian Navy from 3 January 1972 until 25 February 1978. He has eligible defence service from 7 December 1972 until his discharge. He has been diagnosed with osteoarthritis of both knees. Mr Turner says this condition is linked to his service in the Royal Australian Navy, by way of lifting he was required to perform during his service as a bandsman. He has sought medical treatment and pension for incapacity from the condition under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) on that basis.
His claim was refused by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission in a decision dated 21 August 2012 and also by the Veterans’ Review Board in a decision dated 3 June 2013. On 16 July 2013 Mr Turner applied to this Tribunal for a review of the decision.
The question for me is whether there is, with reference to the relevant Statement of Principles, a connection between Mr Turner’s bilateral knee osteoarthritis and his defence service.
Mr Turner’s case can be outlined as follows. Mr Turner mainly played the Cornet, Bugle and Acoustic and Electric Piano in his role as bandsman. He was based both on land bases and on ships during his service, and he travelled all over the world performing in bands giving concerts. As part of his job he was required to carry, load and unload music equipment, chairs and stands for sheet music. Some of the musical instruments, like the Timpani drums and the piano, were very heavy. He estimates the piano weighed
70 kilograms alone without the speakers, which weighed an additional 35 kilograms. When based on a ship he was required to move the instruments and associated equipment up to four times a day.
Mr Turner also had to assist from time to time with general ship duties, including the loading and unloading of consumable stores such as bulk food stuff, sacks of potatoes, cartons of fresh fruit and vegetables, cartons of canned foods and frozen meat. He also assisted with the loading and unloading of technical equipment and spare parts of various sizes and weights. He was deployed to Darwin to help with the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy. He was required to assist with the loading and unloading of emergency equipment, water, tents and clothing, and…
Continue reading Howard Turner and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Howard Turner and Repatriation Commission [2014] AATA 264
- Case
- [2014] AATA 264
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The tribunal examined the evidence presented regarding Mr Turner's military service and the onset and progression of his osteoarthritis. It considered the medical reports and testimonies, as well as the statutory definitions applicable to the case. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that while Mr Turner had served in the navy and developed osteoarthritis in his knees, there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct connection between his military service and the development of his condition. The tribunal emphasised the requirement for a causal link between the condition and the service, and found that this element was not convincingly demonstrated by the evidence provided.
Given this finding, the tribunal upheld the Repatriation Commission's decision to deny Mr Turner's claim for a pension. The tribunal was satisfied that the Commission had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that the evidence did not support a finding of connection between Mr Turner's condition and his service. As a result, the tribunal's decision was to affirm the Commission's original decision. This outcome was based on the tribunal's assessment of the evidence and its conclusion that the criteria for a service-related pension were not met in this instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.