Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 903
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) Nos. 2007/4985 and
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) 2008/4243 Re KAZIMIR KOWALSKI Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis Date9 October 2008
PlaceAdelaide
Decision The decision under review as varied by the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board is affirmed.
D G Jarvis
(Signed)
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS – disability pension – eligible defence service – hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, depression and anxiety – work related stress during service – date of clinical onset of claimed conditions – nature of AAT’s inquisitorial role – evidentiary onus to adduce evidence – appropriate clinical management to be judged according to medical knowledge at time of service – whether factors in SoPs supported connection with service – decision under review affirmed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – application for review refers to decision of VRB instead of decision of respondent – obvious error does not vitiate application for review – held that AAT has jurisdiction.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1988 (Cth), ss 119(1), 120 (4) and 120B(3)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 33(1)
Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Fenner v Repatriation Commission (2005) 218 ALR 122
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Ousley v R (1997) 192 CLR 69
R v Cawthorne; ex parte Public Service Association of SA Inc (1977) 17 SASR 321
Re Cunningham and Repatriation Commission [2007] AATA 1790
Re Eckersley and Minister for Capital Territory (1979) 2 ALD 303
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321
Repatriation Commission v Wellington (1999) 57 ALD 507
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115
Somerset v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 1399
REASONS FOR DECISION
9 October 2008 Deputy President D G Jarvis 1. The applicant, Kazimir Kowalski, enlisted for National Service on 20 April 1972, and was discharged from the Army on 19 October 1973.
2. On 6 March 2007 he lodged a claim for disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (VE Act) for a number of conditions that were regarded by the Repatriation Commission as major depression with co-morbid anxiety, hypertension and ischaemic heart disease. He claimed that the conditions were defence caused. The Commission rejected his claim, and he applied to the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) for review of the Commission’s decision.
3. The VRB decided to vary the decision under review by substituting diagnoses of depressive disorder and anxiety disorder for the previously diagnosed condition of major depression with co-morbid anxiety, but otherwise affirmed the…
Continue reading Kowalski v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 903
- Case
- [2008] AATA 903
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, if so, whether the decision of the Repatriation Commission was correct. The court needed to determine the date of clinical onset of the veteran’s claimed conditions, the nature of the AAT’s inquisitorial role, the evidentiary onus to adduce evidence, and whether the factors in the Schedule of Pensionable Conditions supported a connection with service. The court was also required to determine whether the Repatriation Commission's decision was open to review under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1988.
The court found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, despite the application for review referring to the decision of the Veterans Review Board rather than the decision of the respondent. The court held that an obvious error did not vitiate the application for review. The court further found that the decision of the Repatriation Commission was correct as it was open to the Tribunal to affirm the decision, having regard to the evidence before it. The court held that the veteran had failed to discharge the onus of proving that his conditions were connected with his service. The court found that the clinical onset of the veteran's claimed conditions occurred after his service and that the factors in the Schedule of Pensionable Conditions did not support a connection with service. The court also held that appropriate clinical management was to be judged according to medical knowledge at the time of service.
The final orders of the court were that the decision under review as varied by the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review as varied by the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board is affirmed.
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.