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 261REASONS 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
- AGLC
- Humphreys and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 610
- Case
- [2005] AATA 610
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.