Keevers and Repatriation Commission - [2001] AATA 574

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 574

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1999/1247

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION          )
           Re      CHRISTOPHER SCOTT KEEVERS
  Applicant
           And    REPATRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date22 June 2001
PlaceSydney

Decision      The decisions under review are set aside and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision, namely: THAT the Applicant, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT KEEVERS, is entitled to pension for the war-caused diseases of panic disorder with agoraphobia, psychoactive substance abuse or dependence, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus as and from the first day of July 1996; AND THAT pension is to be paid for incapacity occasioned by all war-caused injuries and diseases at the Special Rate pursuant to s24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as and from the said first day of July 1996.
  (Sgd)               M D ALLEN
  ..............................................
  Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Psychiatric condition accepted as war-caused. That decision revoked by another Delegate of the Respondent following the issuing of a Statement of Principles (SoP) by the Repatriation Medical Authority. Did SoP apply to Tribunal upon review? Apart from SoP did a reasonable hypothesis exist? Was incapacity occasioned to the Applicant permanent?

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 - ss24, 25, subs31(6), subss120(1), (3) and (6), s120A

Repatriation Commission v Keeley 98 FCR 108
Davis v Repatriation Commission 74 FCR 577
Bushell v Repatriation Commission 175 CLR 408
Repatriation Commission v Deledio 83 FCR 82
Adelaide Stevedoring Company Limited v Forst 64 CLR 538

REASONS FOR DECISION

22 June 2001 Senior Member M D Allen Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

This application for review concerns two decisions by the Respondent, both of which were affirmed by a Veterans' Review Board.
The first decision, dated 2 June 1997, reads (T18):
"I have accepted your claim for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus and hypertension with hypertensive heart disease. My decision takes effect from 1 July 1996.
Your claim for diabetes mellitus has been refused.
The claim for irritable bowel syndrome is refused. This is because the diagnosis of this condition cannot be confirmed.
I have decided that a disability pension is to be granted at 60% of the General Rate with effect from 1 July 1996. Entitlement to payment at this rate commences from 4 July 1996, the first pension pay date after the date of effect. Arrears will be calculated from this date."

The second decision is a decision by another Delegate of the Respondent made 18 November 1998. That decision revoked the earlier decision regarding panic disorder with agoraphobia and reduced the Applicant's pension to 10% of the General Rate of pension.
In making his decision of 18 November 1998, the Delegate took into account a Statement of Principles (SoP) regarding panic disorder, being Instrument No 31 of 1998. At the time of the original decision on 2 June 1997 there was no SoP in existence regarding panic disorder.
In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Keevers and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Keevers and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 574
Case: [2001] AATA 574
Decision Date: 22 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Keevers and Repatriation Commission, the case involved a dispute regarding veterans' entitlements concerning the applicant's psychiatric condition, which was initially accepted as war-caused. The Repatriation Commission revoked this decision, leading to an appeal. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Statement of Principles (SoP) issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority applied to the Tribunal upon review and if, aside from the SoP, a reasonable hypothesis existed that the incapacity was occasioned by war service. Additionally, the court had to ascertain whether the incapacity was permanent.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, specifically sections 24, 25, 31(6), 120(1), (3), (6), and 120A. The court needed to determine if the SoP applied to the Tribunal's review and whether a reasonable hypothesis could be formed independent of the SoP. The court also examined whether the incapacity was permanent as required by the Act. The decision of the Full Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Keeley, along with other relevant cases such as Davis v Repatriation Commission, Bushell v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Deledio, and Adelaide Stevedoring Company Limited v Forst, provided important legal precedents.

The Federal Court held that the SoP did not apply to the Tribunal upon review, but a reasonable hypothesis existed independent of the SoP that the incapacity was occasioned by war service. The court found that the incapacity was not permanent, as it was subject to remissions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Repatriation Commission was upheld. The court's reasoning relied on the statutory provisions and the applicable legal precedents, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the veteran's entitlements.

Orders