Kowalski and Repatriation Commission

[2011] AATA 634

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 634

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          Nos 2009/4000 & 2010/2439

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		KAZIMIR KOWALSKI

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member K Bean
Professor D Ben-Tovim (Member)

Date9 September 2011

PlaceAdelaide

Decision

1.    In application 2009/4000, the Tribunal:

              (a)     varies the decision under review so as to provide that the applicant does not suffer from and has not at any relevant time suffered from the conditions of:

                (i)     erectile dysfunction; or

                (ii)     carotid arterial disease; and

      (b)     otherwise affirms the decision under review.

2.    In application 2010/2439, the decision under review is affirmed.

..............................................

K BEAN
  (Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Veterans' entitlements – Disability pension – Eligible defence service – Gout – Diabetes mellitus – Chronic gastritis – Acute stress disorder – Sleep apnoea – Erectile dysfunction – Carotid arterial disease – Cholelithiasis – Whether conditions exist – Relationship to service – Conditions either do not exist or are not related to service – Decisions under review varied and affirmed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Implications of applicant’s decision not to give evidence – Relevance of previous Tribunal decisions – Nature and extent of Tribunal’s obligation to inquire.

Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 ss 70(1), 70(5), 70(7-10), 120(1), 129(2), 120(4), 120B(3), 120B(4)   

Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 409
Re Kowalski and Repatriation Commission (2008) 107 ALD 447
Re Kowalski and MRCC [2009] AATA 38
Re Kowalski and MRCC [2009] AATA 382
Re Repatriation Commission and Kowalski [2009] AATA 853
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Somerset v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 1399
McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 794
Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCAFC 19
Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2010] HCASL 209
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321
Re Oliver and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 408
Re AK and Commissioner for Superannuation (1986) 11 ALN N106
Re Australian Petroleum Supplies Pty Ltd and Giuliano (2001) 66 ALD 676
Re Quinn and Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 15 AAR 519

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 111 ALD 15

Statement of Principles Instrument No 76 of 2001
Statement of Principles Instrument No 31 of 2010
Statement of Principles Instrument No 12 of 2000
Statement of Principles Instrument No 44 of 2003
Statement of Principles Instrument No 90 of 2011
Statement of Principles Instrument No 12 of 2004
Statement of Principles Instrument No 8 of 2008

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 September 2011

  Senior Member K Bean

  Professor D Ben-Tovim (Member)

introduction

1.In the early 1970s the applicant, Mr Kowalski, undertook national service in the Australian Army.  As a result of that service, he claims to have contracted a number of medical conditions and has engaged in extensive litigation with a view to establishing an entitlement to various benefits which he considers are payable to…