Howard Turner and Repatriation Commission

Case [2014] AATA 264


[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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

Details
AGLC
Howard Turner and Repatriation Commission [2014] AATA 264
Case
[2014] AATA 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the tribunal was a review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission concerning Mr Howard Turner's claim for a pension on the basis of his service in the Royal Australian Navy. Mr Turner was seeking compensation for bilateral knee osteoarthritis, claiming it was connected to his service. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the Repatriation Commission's decision to deny Mr Turner's claim was correct. The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on the definition and applicability of "eligible service" under the relevant legislation and whether Mr Turner's bilateral knee osteoarthritis was a condition arising out of or in the course of that service.

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

I am not satisfied there is a connection between Mr Turner’s condition of bilateral knee osteoarthritis and his eligible defence service. DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.