Humphreys and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 610


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 610

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/53

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

)

Re JOHN BOLTON HUMPHREYS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member

Date29 June 2005

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

SC Fisher
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – disability pension – whether applicant’s condition of osteoarthritis of the metacarpal joint of the right and left wrists is war-caused – application of Statement of Principles – no causal link between injuries received by applicant during eligible war service and osteoarthritis – condition not war-caused – decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 7, 9, 120, 120B, 174 -176, 196B

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy (Federal Court, 29 June 1998, 809/98)
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248; (2003) 74 ALD 21
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472 Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 365
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321; (2001) 65 ALD 609
Hillier v Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Palmer and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 2
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564; (1993) 30 ALD 1
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408; (1992) 29 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307; (1998) 52 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel [1999] FCA 1273; (1999) 59 ALD 690
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 25 AAR 396; (1997) 47 ALD 261

REASONS FOR DECISION

29 June 2005 Mr SC Fisher, Member       

Introduction And Background

1.      Mr John Bolton Humphreys (“the Applicant”) was born on 23 September 1923 and served with the Australian Army from 13 January 1942 until 21 August 1946.  The Applicant did not serve outside Australia or in an operational area within Australia.  The Applicant was posted to 118 Res Motor Transport Company on 22 February 1942.  During that posting, between 22 February 1942 and 18 April 1942, the Applicant was required to crank start motors by hand as part of the daily maintenance routine.  The Applicant was struck a number of times on the wrists during this procedure by the crank handle, which he claims led ultimately to the osteoarthritic condition for which he seeks to have the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") accept liability.

2.      The Applicant applied for a pension on 5 August 2002 under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) for a number of medical conditions, including "collapsed knuckles both wrists left and right", which attracted the medical diagnosis of "osteoarthrosis of the right wrist and left wrist".  On 27 November 2002, the Respondent accepted liability for a number of medical conditions but declined…

Continue reading Humphreys and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Humphreys and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 610
Case
[2005] AATA 610
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Humphreys and the Repatriation Commission, the primary concern was whether the applicant's osteoarthritis of the metacarpal joint in both wrists was a result of his war service. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the applicant, Humphreys, seeking a disability pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Commission had previously ruled against Humphreys' claim for disability pension due to his osteoarthritis, a decision Humphreys sought to overturn. The core legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Statement of Principles concerning war-related disabilities and the extent to which Humphreys' condition could be linked to his service.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and the application of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. It considered the applicant's medical history and the injuries he sustained during his war service. The Tribunal needed to determine if there was a causal link between the injuries sustained and the osteoarthritis Humphreys developed. The analysis included the review of medical reports and the application of the Statement of Principles, which outlines the conditions considered war-caused. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between Humphreys' war injuries and his osteoarthritis, leading to the affirmation of the original decision.

The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the lack of evidence supporting a causal relationship between the applicant's war injuries and his osteoarthritis. It noted that while Humphreys' service resulted in injuries to his wrists, there was no medical evidence to suggest that these injuries led to the development of osteoarthritis. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and statutory provisions to support its findings, highlighting that the burden of proof lay with Humphreys to demonstrate a causal connection. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Repatriation Commission, denying Humphreys' claim for a disability pension. The final order affirmed the decision under review, maintaining the denial of the disability pension to Humphreys.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.