JOYCE and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Case [2011] AATA 836


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 836

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2011/0182

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re MICHAEL JOYCE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr M Denovan, Member

Date25 November 2011

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the determination of the Repatriation Commission dated 7 May 2009 and substitutes the decision that the veteran’s posttraumatic stress disorder was a war-caused disease.

The Commonwealth of Australia is liable pursuant to s 13 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) to pay to the applicant pension and treatment for disability caused by posttraumatic stress disorder from 17 July 2010.

This matter be remitted to the Repatriation Commission to assess the rate at which pension is to be paid for incapacity for all accepted war-caused injuries and diseases including the disease of posttraumatic stress disorder.

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

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Disability pension – Operational service with Royal Australian Air Force – Diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder – Application of Statements of Principles – Hypothesis that posttraumatic stress disorder war-caused reasonable – Hypothesis not disproven beyond reasonable doubt – Decision under review set aside

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 29

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 9, 70, 120, 120A, 177, 196B

Border v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2010] FCA 1430

Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1832; (2001) 66 ALD 271

Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309

East v Repatriation Commission [1987] FCA 242; (1987) 16 FCR 517

Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377

Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1174; (2004) 82 ALD 433

Repatriation Commission v Bey [1997] FCA 1347; (1997) 79 FCR 364

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

REASONS FOR DECISION

25 November 2011 Dr M Denovan, Member    

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant, Mr Michael Joyce, served as a cook in the Royal Australian Air Force from 26 April 1968 to 25 April 1974. From 15 April 1970 to 15 July 1970 he served in Vietnam, which is eligible war service and operational service pursuant to ss 6C and 7 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act). Mr Joyce claims that during this service he experienced two events that resulted in him now suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The first of these was when he went to the assistance of a fellow soldier who was injured when a kitchen oven exploded (the oven event). The second event occurred when Mr Joyce attempted to speak to another soldier who was his friend, when both were awaiting transfer to an air base for the purpose of being Medivaced to Australia (the transfer event).

2.      On 7 May 2009 the respondent rejected a claim made by Mr Joyce on 30 July 2008 for PTSD. That decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 7 October 2010. On 10 February 2011 Mr Joyce applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of that decision.

ISSUES AND THE LEGISLATION

Continue reading JOYCE and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
JOYCE and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2011] AATA 836
Case
[2011] AATA 836
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a veteran, identified as Joyce, and the Repatriation Commission. Joyce applied for a disability pension, claiming that his posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was caused by his operational service with the Royal Australian Air Force. The Repatriation Commission rejected his claim, leading Joyce to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT was required to determine whether Joyce's PTSD was a war-caused disease and whether the Repatriation Commission's decision was legally sound.

The key legal issue before the AAT was whether the hypothesis that Joyce's PTSD was war-caused was reasonably possible, and whether the Repatriation Commission had discharged its burden of disproving this hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. The AAT considered the relevant Statements of Principles and whether the Commission's decision was open to review under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The AAT needed to assess whether the evidence presented by Joyce sufficiently supported the claim that his PTSD was war-caused.

In reviewing the matter, the AAT found that the Repatriation Commission had not disproven the hypothesis that Joyce's PTSD was war-caused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence, including Joyce's own account of his experiences and the relevant medical reports, was sufficient to support the hypothesis. The AAT concluded that the Commission's decision was therefore legally flawed and set it aside. The AAT substituted its own decision that Joyce's PTSD was indeed a war-caused disease, and directed that the Commonwealth of Australia was liable to pay pension and treatment for this condition from a specified date. The matter was then remitted to the Repatriation Commission to reassess the rate of pension payable, taking into account all war-caused injuries and diseases, including PTSD.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the determination of the Repatriation Commission dated 7 May 2009 and substitutes the decision that the veteran’s posttraumatic stress disorder was a war-caused disease.

The Commonwealth of Australia is liable pursuant to s 13 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) to pay to the applicant pension and treatment for disability caused by posttraumatic stress disorder from 17 July 2010.

This matter be remitted to the Repatriation Commission to assess the rate at which pension is to be paid for incapacity for all accepted war-caused injuries and diseases including the disease of posttraumatic stress disorder.

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.