Langfield and Repatriation Commission - [2001] AATA 888

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 888

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/764

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION          )
           Re      JAMES LANGFIELD
  Applicant
           And    REPTRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr JD Campbell, Member

Date26 October 2001
PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor determines that: (a) The Applicant's condition of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused diseases; and (b) The Applicant is entitled to the payment of a disability pension at the special rate, with the date of effect being 10 February 1999.

[Sgd] Dr JD Campbell
Member
CATCHWORDS
Veterans' Entitlements - war-caused disabilities - assessment - special rate

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, ss 24, 120, 120A

REASONS FOR DECISION

DR J D Campbell, Member

In this matter Mr James Langfield ("the Applicant") seeks a review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") dated 8 June 1999, that refused the Applicant's claim for anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence. The decision of the Repatriation Commission was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board ("VRB") in their decision dated 11 April 2000.
A hearing was held before the Tribunal on 10 July 2001, at which the Applicant was represented by Mr Price of Counsel. The Respondent was represented by Mr Modder, an advocate from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Applicant presented oral evidence to the Tribunal.
The following material was placed into evidence before the Tribunal:
Exhibit No  Description          Date
T1-T14, pp1-66 Documents prepared pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
A1      Applicant's statement of facts and contentions 13 December 2000
A2      Applicant's statement         19 September 2000
A3      Medical report of Dr Law    26 April 2000
A4      Medical report of Dr Dinnen         1 December 2000
R1      Respondent's statement of facts and contentions        22 July 2001
R2      Transcript of VRB hearing 11 April 2000
R3      Medical report of Dr Carne 4 September 2000
R4      Medical report of Dr Carne 19 March 2001
R5      Clinical notes of Dr Ockenden re the Applicant
R6      Report of Commodore Mulcare     2 December 2000
R7      Report of Commodore Mulcare     19 April 2001
R8      Report of Commodore Mulcare     26 June 2001

issues

The relevant issues in this matter are whether the Applicant's conditions of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence:
·     exist; and
·     are war-caused; and
·     if war-caused, whether the Applicant is entitled to a pension at the special rate.

legislation

The relevant legislation in this matter is the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 ("the Act") and in particular sections 24, 120(1), 120(3), 120(4) and 120A.
The relevant Statements of Principles ("SoP") in this matter are:

SoP No 1 of 2000 concerning anxiety disorder;
SoP No 48 of 1994, as amended by Instrument No 275 of 1995 concerning generalised anxiety disorder;
SoP No 76 of 1998, concerning alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse.

background

The Applicant was born on 19 January 1946 and undertook service with the Navy from 5 January 1962 to 4 July 1968. The Applicant had operational service on HMAS Sydney for the period 14 September 1965 to 20 October 1965. The reason for discharge was recorded as 'below naval physical standard' (T3, p5).
The Applicant lodged a claim with the Respondent on 13 May 1999, in which he sought to have recognised as war-caused diseases anxiety with alcohol dependence, and in which he detailed that he had ceased work in October 1998 as a result of a business failure. Further in the claim, the Applicant stated that he commenced drinking alcohol in 1965 on account of anxiety, consuming his issued daily ration aboard HMAS Sydney. The Applicant stated that his habit became heavier in an effort to cope while on service and later after service, to the point that by May 1999 the he was consuming 12 schooners and one bottle of scotch per day. Similarly the Applicant in completing a smoking questionnaire stated that he commenced smoking on service in 1965 because of worry (and they were cheap at that time). He smoked at the rate of 20 per day and by 1999 he was smoking 90 per day (T4).
On 28 May 1999, Dr Law, a consultant psychiatrist, detailed in his report that the Applicant suffered from impaired sleep, spells of anxiety over many years when he "felt really nervous, shakes all the time, breathing hard, lying in bed and shivers, lasting half an hour to a couple of days". The Applicant was also recorded as often feeling depressed, and having guilt feelings. Dr Law also details a number of stressful and threatening incidents experienced by the Applicant, namely:
(a)a fight in Singapore around 1965 involving approximately 800 Australian and British seaman;
(b)around 1965-1966, witnessing a British seaman stabbed to death in Singapore;
(c)witnessing the death of a US navy sailor in Subic Bay, when he was shot by the military police; and
(d)witnessing war planes bombing the hills, day and night.
Dr Law detailed that the Applicant commenced drinking when he first went to Vietnam and increased his consumption in later years in the navy. Later, after leaving the navy, it increased to a level of ten schooners of beer and one bottle of scotch per day. Dr Law recorded the Applicant as having been convicted of drink driving offences in 1978 and 1996.
Dr Law concluded that the Applicant has suffered from anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence and tobacco dependence, with all these conditions being causally related to his past adverse military experiences. Dr Law considered that the Applicant is unable to work (T, p33).
In a report to the Respondent on 2 June 1999, Dr Law detailed a similar set of findings as nominated in the three previous paragraphs, and detailed the Applicant's impairment assessment at 38 (T6).
On 8 June 1999 the Respondent refused the Applicant's claim for anxiety disorder with alcohol dependence (T7).
In a further report dated 9 August 1999, Dr Law stated that the Applicant had tried to cut down his drinking, but that over the years he had required increased drinking and smoking to achieve desired effects. Dr Law considered that the Applicant suffers from service related anxiety disorders and dependence problems in relation to smoking and drinking. Dr Law considered the Applicant unfit for work, and continued the Applicant on stemetil 5mgs BD and valium 5mgs, nought to two tablets a day (T9).
On 11 April 2000, the VRB affirmed the decision under review in relation to anxiety disorder with alcohol dependence (T11).
applicant's evidence
The Applicant informed the Tribunal that HMAS Sydney sailed to Vung Tau via Subic Bay and returned via Subic Bay in September/October 1965. The Applicant told the Tribunal that an incidence occurred on the way up, when he went ashore at Subic Bay with a group of sailors. Aged 19 at the time, the Applicant left his group, because he did not like the show they were watching. The Applicant, who at that time neither drank nor smoked, then met an American sailor, who he had previously met and spent a fair amount of time with in Hong Kong in 1963. The Applicant stated that he spent the rest of the night with the American sailor, and shortly after midnight some military police came into the bar, where he and the American sailor were sitting at a table. The military police said to his sailor acquaintance that he should not be there, with the latter replying that he would take the MP's baton from him and belt him with it. The Applicant said the navy sailor stepped towards the MP and took the baton off him, whereupon the MP shot the navy sailor. The Applicant stated that the other MP said the sailor was dead and that there was a lot of screaming and carrying on. He did not know the name of the sailor or what ship he was on. The Applicant said he left in a hurry, running back to his ship in half an hour, and did not speak to anyone about his experience, with the ship leaving the next morning.
The Applicant stated that before the incident he had not consumed alcohol, and that he started after the incident, receiving a ration of one large can of beer per day, with two or three such cans making him 'legless' at the time. This increased over time to eight to ten middies per day, plus some rum and an increasing tendency to drink in the morning. The Applicant stated that he now drinks eight to 12 schooners per day, plus rum and whisky. The Applicant stated that he remains insular, preferring not to get close to anyone less he might get hurt and that he would prefer having a drink rather than sex.
After being medically discharged in 1968 after six and a half years of service, he worked as a trainee manager at Kentucky Fried Chicken, where he was dismissed because of alcohol. He next worked from 1971 to 1972 as a manager at McDonalds. From 1973 to 1975 he worked as a sales manager at Col Crawford Motors, until dismissed for drinking. From 1976 to 1978 he worked for Kinsella Nicholson as a sales manager, until dismissed because of alcohol. From 1978 to 1981 he was employed as a manager at Swan Motors, until being dismissed for being irritable and cranky and consuming alcohol when he should not. From 1982 to 1988 he worked as a manager at James Sutherland Toyota, until dismissed because of alcohol. From 1988 to 1991 he worked as a manager at Bill Buckle Motors, until he commenced his own business (James Langfield Motors) in 1992. This business failed in 1998, and the Applicant was placed into bankruptcy. He is currently receiving a social security pension, plus rent assistance.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that in 1999 he ran into an old shipmate from HMAS Quiberon (1963/64), who suggested that he needed help. His wife rang the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service and was advised that he should get a referral from his local doctor, which he did and this resulted in him seeing Dr Law, who remains his treating psychiatrist.
The Applicant, in response to questions from the Respondent indicated that his memory was variable and that he was a bit vague about his navy service after Vietnam. The Applicant indicated that he was not drinking at the time of the brawl in Singapore.
In relation to alcohol availability and consumption, the Applicant indicated that while in the navy, you could drink as much as you could get and by 1966/67 at HMAS Waterhen he was drinking 10 schooners a day. Once out of the navy there were no restrictions on supply and that since he commenced drinking there had been no periods of abstinence.
medical evidence
dr Law
In a further report dated 26 April 2000, having summed up further consultations with the Applicant since his last report in August 1999, Dr Law came to the following conclusion:
"Mr Langfield still suffers from generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse and nicotine abuse. These mental conditions are causally related to his past military time experiences. He is definitely unable to work at the present, and most probably int eh coming several months at least. I cannot give a firm opinion about his longterm job prospects, but I am pessimistic about his condition in 1-2 years' time." (Exhibit A3)

In a report dated 1 December 2000, Dr Dinnen, a consultant psychiatrist, in noting the personal history of the Applicant which included the accidental death of his son on 9 April 1970 and the death of his mother from cancer in 1971, detailed the following:
"Opinion: This patient undoubtedly suffers from chronic generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse and cigarette abuse, dating from his service in the navy. All of these conditions occurred in the circumstances described by the patient and I believe he is a witness of truth in this regard. It can be seen that his operational service in Vietnam was perhaps the final straw or triggering factor which led to the onset of these conditions which have continued to the present time and cause him to be totally unemployable.
I do not believe the patient could work more than 8 hours a week because of his combined conditions of alcohol abuse and generalised anxiety disorder, but each of those conditions on its own would also render him capable of working more than 8 hours per week.
I have not rated impairment according to GARP V but am content to accept Dr Law's assessment rather that that of either Dr Carne or the VRB.
It is my view that the stressful operational service on board HMAS Sydney in 1965 can be regarded as causing the generalised anxiety disorder by the patient according to condition 1 (c) of the Statement of Principles No 48 of 1994 (T12, page 56) and alcohol abuse according to Factor 5 (a) of the Statement of Principles No 76 of 1998 (T14, page 64)." (Exhibt R4).

dr carne

In a report dated 4 September 2000 Dr Carne, a consultant psychiatrist, as a result of his consultation, concluded that the Applicant was not suffering from generalised anxiety disorder, but demonstrated evidence of alcohol dependence. Dr Carne considered the Applicant to be unemployable due to his alcohol dependence and that he could not work eight or more hours a week. Dr Carne considered the Applicant to have impairment rating of 26 (Exhibit R3).
In a further report dated 19 March 2001, and having considered the report of Dr Law dated 26 April 2000, the report of Dr Dinnen dated 1 December 2000 and reports of Commodore Mulcare dated 2 December 2000 and 21 February 2001, Dr Carne detailed the following opinion:
"Whilst Mr Langfield may not be an accurate historian, unless one can disprove his contention that he started drinking whilst on operational service in Vietnam on HMAS Sydney between 14th September and 20th October, 1965 then I maintain my opinion that Mr Langfield's alcohol dependence problem was triggered by events taking place when he was on active duty.
For the above reasons I also stand by my opinion and diagnosis that Mr Langfield's primary problem at present is that of alcohol dependence. It may well be the case that he is suffering from an anxiety disorder underlying his alcohol problem, although from my examination of him all symptoms attributable to anxiety disorder can be explained by symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, the result of his pattern of alcohol use.
Thank you for asking my opinion on Mr Langfield, I would be happy to enlarge further on any of the above if it would be of further assistance." (Exhibit R4)

clinical records of dr ockenden

The clinical records of Dr Ockenden reveal that the Applicant had attended for a variety of conditions since the late eighties, with the records until 1999 being silent on issues of alcohol abuse or significant anxiety disorder. In 1992 the Applicant described his habits as beer ( two 10 oz a day) and cigarettes (20 to 30 a day) (Exhibit R5).
reports of commodore mulcare
In his report dated 2 December 2000, Commodore Mulcare details the voyage itinerary of HMAS Sydney from when the ship sailed from Brisbane on 14 September 1965 to its arrival at Subic Bay on 25 September 1965 for refuelling, and its departure at 1800 hours on the same day with no leave being granted. Further, it details HMAS Sydney's voyages to Vung Tau and return to Subic Bay, where it arrived on 4 October 1965 before departing on 6 October 1965, arriving in Sydney on 20 October 1965.
Commodore Mulcare has been unable, despite much persistence, to find any records that support the Veteran's contention in relation to the incident at Olongapo, but the incident as described could well have happened, although it would have had to occur on the return voyage, as this was the only time leave was granted.
Following further enquires, Commodore Mulcare was unable to progress the matter (Exhibits, R6, R7, R8).
submissions
applicant
Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant suffers from the disease of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence and in so contending relies upon the medical opinions of Drs Dinnen, Law and Carne (in relation to alcohol dependence).
Further, it is submitted that the Applicant satisfies factor 1(c) of SoP Instrument No 48 of 1994 concerning generalised anxiety disorder and factor 5(a) of SoP Instrument No 76 of 1998 concerning alcohol dependence or abuse. As a consequence, the Respondent contends that the two conditions are war-caused diseases. In so stating the Applicant relies upon the opinion of Dr Dinnen.
The Applicant contends that the appropriate impairment rating for the two conditions is 38 and in so doing relies upon the two opinions of Drs Law and Dinnen.
The Applicant further contends that he is unfit for work of eight hours or more per week because of these nominated conditions alone and again relies upon the opinions of Drs Law, Dinnen and Carne.
respondent
The Respondent, in relying upon the report of Commodore Mulcare and in particular the record of proceedings for HMAS Sydney for September 1965 wherein the passage was described as uneventful, contends that the stressors upon which the Applicant relies that occurred in Singapore or the Philippines did not occur on operational service. Further, the Respondent contends that the variability as to the time that these incidents occurred as nominated by the Applicant over time make their occurrence within the period of operational service improbable.
considerations and findings
In addressing the Applicant's history of events and his description of subsequent events, the Tribunal does observe that there has been a consistent and persistent nomination of alcohol use by the Applicant, commencing after the events of the Subic Bay incident during his period of operational service. There is certainly a history of increasing consumption up to ten schooners of beer at HMAS Waterhen by 1966/67, the Applicant having first commenced consuming alcohol during his period of operational service in late 1965. The Tribunal also notes the Applicant's work history post his navy service, his alcohol usage and his dismissal from a significant number of jobs for alcohol related reasons, as well as his two convictions for alcohol related driving offences in 1978 and 1996.
In noting the opinions of the three psychiatrists, namely Drs Law, Dinnen and Carne, the Tribunal does find that the Applicant suffers from the disease of alcohol abuse or dependence.
Further, in noting the Applicant's history of events, in particular as to why he commenced smoking and drinking in late 1965, and his reasons both for continuing to drink and drinking in increasing quantities during the remainder of his service and thereafter in civilian employment, coupled with his difficulties in sleeping, interpersonal relationships and maintaining employment, the Tribunal turns to a consideration of the three psychiatric reports. Both Drs Law and Dinnen consider the Applicant to be suffering from a generalised anxiety disorder which commenced during his operational service and continued to this day as evidenced by the symptomatology outlined to them by the Applicant during their respective consultations. Dr Carne on the other hand is reluctant to move beyond a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, which he believes was triggered by events taking place when he was on active duty, but does in reflection state, "It may well be the case that he is suffering from an anxiety disorder underlying his alcohol problem." In considering these three reports the Tribunal is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Applicant does suffer from generalised anxiety disorder.
Before progressing this matter further the Tribunal would comment that the variability of the Applicant's evidence, as to when particular incidents nominated occurred, has not escaped the Tribunal's attention. In considering all the evidence placed before it and the various reports of Commodore Mulcare, the Tribunal does accept that there is material in the evidence pointing to facts which allow the following hypothesis to be formulated:
An incident, witnessed by the Applicant and which involved the shooting death of an American sailor, whom he had earlier become acquainted with in Hong Kong and with whom he was accompanying in a bar in Olongapo, occurred while on operational service in September/October 1965. The incident resulted in the Applicant leaving the scene of the incident and running back to his ship in Subic Bay Naval Station. As a consequence of experiencing the incident the Applicant developed an anxiety disorder, which has continued to this day with the development of alcohol dependence occurring later as a consequence of the incident and/or a consequence of the generalised anxiety disorder.

The Tribunal, having accepted that the facts pertinent to the formulation of the hypothesis are pointed to by the material in this matter, moves to address the issue of whether the hypothesis is reasonable. In addressing generalised anxiety disorder, the Tribunal notes that within factor 1(b) of SoP Instrument No 48 of 1994 as amended by Instrument No 275 of 1995 concerning generalised anxiety disorder, it is necessary to satisfy experiencing a stressful event not more than two years before the clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder, with a stressful event being defined as "an occurrence which evokes feelings of anxiety or stress". The Tribunal also notes that SoP Instrument No 1 of 2000 concerning anxiety disorder is the SoP in force at the time of this decision. The Tribunal, in noting factor 5(a) of this Instrument observes that the Applicant must have experienced severe psychosocial stressor within two years, with the definition of severe psychosocial stressor being defined in paragraph 8 of the Instrument. Having considered both SoP, in that while it may be argued that the Applicant's incident in Olongapo may well satisfy the definitional requirements contained within SoP No 1 of 2000, in relation to experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor, it is evident to the Tribunal that there is material before it which points to the definitional requirements of "experiencing a stressful event", as nominated in the SoP 48 of 1994 as amended, being satisfied and therefor putting beyond contention the existence of a reasonable hypothesis.
It is clear to the Tribunal that the incident involving the death of the American sailor in Olangapo would satisfy the definition of a stressful event and further, that the material in this matter clearly points to the development of a generalised anxiety disorder as an immediate consequence of this incident. Details of such material are to be found in the Applicant's evidence and the reports of Drs Law and Dinnen, with the main consequence being the commencement of alcohol consumption by the Applicant and a rapidly evolving increase in that consumption, so much so that by 1966/67 the Applicant was averaging 10 schooners of beer a day while at HMAS Waterhen, a habit which has continued and evolved to this time.
As a consequence the Tribunal concludes that the hypothesis relating the incident and the development of generalised anxiety disorder is a reasonable hypothesis, as there is in the Tribunal's view material which satisfies the template, and in particular the two year requirement.
In addressing the issue of alcohol dependence, the Tribunal, in considering SoP Instrument No 76 of 1998 concerning alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, notes factors 5(a), suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence, and 6(b), experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence with a severe stressor being defined as:
"The person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury or a threat to the person'' or other persons physical integrity, which event or events might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror".
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is material before it which points to the existence of a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence and that there is material which points to the Applicant having experienced a severe stressor which occurred within two years of the Applicant having developed alcohol dependence. The Tribunal also notes the opinions of Drs Law, Carne and Dinnen in this regard.
As a consequence of these considerations, the Tribunal concludes that a reasonable hypothesis exists linking the Applicant's operational service with his alcohol dependence, with the material pointed to by the evidence satisfying factors 5(a) and 6(b) of the SoP Instrument No 76 of 1998.
In addressing the issue of whether any facts are before the Tribunal which would disprove beyond reasonable doubt the facts which constitute the hypothesis, or alternatively, the proof of other facts beyond reasonable doubt, which by their existence would disprove the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt, the Tribunal observes that there has been much contention as to when and where the specific incidents stated by the Applicant did occur. Despite the best efforts of Commodore Mulcare to provide some corroboration of the specific events in Subic Bay, the Tribunal finds that it is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the incident as described by the Applicant did not occur, with the incident happening on the Applicant's return from Vung Tau to Subic Bay. As a consequence of the Tribunal's considerations, it concludes that facts which constitute the hypothesis have not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt, nor have facts been proved beyond reasonable doubt which are inconsistent with the hypothesis thus disproving the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt.
The Tribunal, accordingly, finds that the Applicant's generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused diseases.
In addressing the assessment the Tribunal notes the opinions of Drs Law and Dinnen that the appropriate assessment for the two diseases is an impairment rating of 38. The Tribunal further notes the assessment of Dr Carne, which nominates an impairment rating of 26 for alcohol dependence. The Tribunal, in forming its own assessment, considers the following emotional and behavioural worksheet:
Table 1 Subjective distress
Suffers often from feelings of anxiety, consistent inability to distract himself from his symptomatology 10

Table 2 Objective distress

Continuous difficulty with sleeping and obvious preoccupation with his symptoms, irritable and argumentative, continued resort to alcohol 10

Table 3 Functional effects

Intoxication
Irritability
Difficulties with personal care when intoxicated 2

Table 4 Occupation

Unemployed and not able to work 8

Table 5 Domestic situation

Strained relationship with wife and son 3

Table 6 Social interaction

Argumentative
Likes to be on his own
No friends 5

Table 7 Leisure activities

Loss of interest in most vocational activities 5

Table 8 Current therapy

Psychiatric treatment on six-weekly basis, medication 5

As a consequence of its findings in the previous paragraph, the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant has an impairment rating of 38, with a lifestyle rating of 3 being determined on the level of medical impairment. The Applicant has a 70 per cent degree of incapacity.
special rate
In addressing whether the Applicant is entitled to payment of a disability pension at the special rate, the Tribunal turns to a consideration of the Applicant's circumstances within the statutory framework nominated within section 24 of the Act. It is evident to the Tribunal and the Tribunal so finds that the Applicant does satisfy:
·     section 24(1)(aa) of the Act, in that the Applicant has made a claim for a pension under section 14; and
·     section 24(1)(aab) of the Act, in that the Applicant had not yet turned 65 when the claim was made; and
·     section 24(1)(a)(i) of the Act, in that the degree of incapacity suffered by the veteran from war-caused diseases is 70 per cent.
In turning to s24(1)(b), the Tribunal notes the opinions of Drs Law, Dinnen and Carne that the Applicant is unable to work for more than eight hours per week and that this is due to his war-caused injuries alone. In the light of such opinions and having again reviewed the evidence of the Applicant, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant satisfies section 24(1)(b) of the Act.
In considering s24(1)(c) of the Act the Tribunal notes that the Applicant finished work in 1998 and that this was unrelated to his war-caused diseases. The Tribunal, in turn noting the evidence of the Applicant and the opinions of the three psychiatrists, namely Drs Law, Dinnen and Carne, finds that the Applicant was prevented throughout the assessment period in returning to employment, solely as a consequence of his war-caused diseases, namely generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence. The Tribunal further concludes that the Applicant satisfies section 24(1)(c) of the Act.
In summary the Tribunal finds that the Applicant satisfies all the necessary requirements nominated in section 24 of the Act and that he is entitled to payment of a disability pension at the special rate, with the date of effect being 10 February 1999.
determination
The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be set aside and in substitution therefor determines that:

(a) the Applicant's conditions of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused diseases; and

(b) the Applicant is entitled to the payment of a disability pension at the special rate, with the date of effect being 10 February 1999.

I certify that the 53 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr JD Campbell, Member
Signed: R Quinn
..............................................................................
  Associate
Date/s of Hearing  10 July 2001
Date of Decision  26 October 2001
Counsel for the Applicant        Mr David Price
Solicitor for the Respondent    Mr Stephen Modder