Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 587
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/585
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re BARRIE JONES Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member Date21 June 2005
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal:
(a) affirms the decision under review in relation to depressive disorder; and
(b) sets aside the decision under review in relation to post traumatic stress disorder and substitutes its decision that this condition is a war-caused disease, that pension for any incapacity associated with that disease is payable to the applicant from and including 9 February 2002 and that the matter of assessment of that incapacity is remitted to the Repatriation Commission.
.........[Sgd]............
RG Kenny
Member
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)No Q2004/585
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re BARRIE JONES Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
CORRIGENDUM [2005] AATA 587
Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member Date24 June 2006
PlaceBrisbane
The Reasons for Decision handed down by the Tribunal on 21 June 2005 are amended so that the reference to Repatriation Commission v Kelly (1987) 15 FLR 327 is replaced with the following citation:
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
[Sgd]
RG Kenny
MEMBER
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – disability pension – operational service with Australian Army – post traumatic stress disorder and depression – appropriate diagnosis of conditions – standard of proof for diagnosis – application of Statement of Principles - reasonable hypotheses of relevant relationship to service raised for post traumatic stress disorder – condition war-caused and decision set aside – assessment of rate of pension remitted to respondent – no reasonable hypotheses of relevant relationship to service raised for depressive disorder – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 6C, 7, 14, 70, 120, 120A
Repatriation Commission v Budworth [2001] FCA 1421
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363
Repatriation Commission v Kelly (1987) 15 FLR 327
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) FCAC 160
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Keeley v Repatriation Commission (2001) 60 ALD 401
White v Repatriation [2004] FCA 633
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) FCAC 300REASONS FOR DECISION
21 June 2005 Mr RG Kenny, Member Background
1. Barrie Jones, the applicant, served in the Australian Army from 5 May 1964 until 13 May 1970. His service included a period in South Vietnam. He now contends that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and depression and that these are related to aspects of his service in South Vietnam.
2. On 9 May 2002, Mr Jones lodged a formal claim for acceptance by the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) of “stress”. That claim, which was made in accordance with section 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), resulted in a determination by a delegate of the respondent, on 23 October 2002, that Mr Jones suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and depression but that these conditions were not…
Continue reading Jones and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Jones and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 587
- Case
- [2005] AATA 587
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Repatriation Commission had correctly applied the relevant legal standards in assessing the applicant's conditions. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine if the Commission had appropriately diagnosed the applicant's conditions and applied the correct standard of proof. Additionally, the Tribunal had to examine whether the Commission's decisions regarding the applicability of the Statement of Principles to the applicant's conditions were legally sound.
The Tribunal found that while the Repatriation Commission had correctly diagnosed the applicant's depressive disorder, it had erred in its assessment of PTSD. The Tribunal concluded that there were reasonable hypotheses of a relevant relationship between the applicant's service and the development of PTSD, thus satisfying the legal criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision regarding PTSD and substituted its own decision that the condition was war-caused. The matter of assessing the incapacity associated with PTSD was remitted to the Repatriation Commission. In contrast, the Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decision regarding the depressive disorder, as no reasonable hypotheses of a relevant relationship to service were raised.
The Tribunal's final orders were that the decision under review in relation to depressive disorder was affirmed, and the decision regarding PTSD was set aside. The Tribunal substituted its decision that PTSD was a war-caused disease, and the pension for any incapacity associated with that disease was payable to the applicant from and including 9 February 2002. The matter of assessing that incapacity was remitted to the Repatriation Commission.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal:
(a) affirms the decision under review in relation to depressive disorder; and
(b) sets aside the decision under review in relation to post traumatic stress disorder and substitutes its decision that this condition is a war-caused disease, that pension for any incapacity associated with that disease is payable to the applicant from and including 9 February 2002 and that the matter of assessment of that incapacity is remitted to the Repatriation Commission.
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.