Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 920
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) N1999/1271 ) N2004/832
Re ROBERT LAUGHTON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger - Senior Member
Dr P Lynch - MemberDate21 September 2005
PlaceSydney
DECISION
Matter N1999/1271 - By consent of the parties, and pursuant to section 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal, affirms the decision of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans Review Board to refuse Mr Robert Laughton’s claims that allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis are war-caused.
Matter N1999/1271 - The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans Review Board regarding assessment, and decides that Mr Laughton is eligible for pension at the Special Rate pursuant to section 24 of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986, with date of effect on and from 28 February 1998.
Matter N2004/832 - By consent of the parties, and pursuant to section 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans Review Board which held that Mr Laughton’s bipolar disorder was not related to service. In substitution therefor, the Tribunal decides that Mr Laughton’s war-caused disease of anxiety hysteria was, and is, what is now called bipolar disorder, which has been a pensionable war-caused disease or injury since 14 September 1960.
.........................................
Ms G Ettinger
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Veteran – bipolar illness of Applicant not previously accepted as war-caused - accepted in consent decision at commencement of hearing – allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis not war-caused (consent decision) – capacity of Veteran for work – loss of earnings - pension payable at the special rate.
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 19, 23, 24
CASE LAW
Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564
Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 55 ALD 207
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47
Repatriation Commission v Alexander (2003) 75 ALD 329
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
Sheehy v Repatriation Commission (1996) 41 ALD 205
Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) 81 ALD 625
Hendy v Repatriation Commission (2002) 72 ALD 112
Hall v Repatriation Commission (1994) 33 ALD 454REASONS FOR DECISION
21 September 2005 Ms G Ettinger – Senior Member
Dr P Lynch - Member
1. Mr Robert Laughton is a talented, innovative person who served in the Australian Army from 1952 until 1958 when he was discharged medically unfit. In the Army he qualified as a motor mechanic and driver, and was posted to Malaya. In 1955 he had a motor cycle accident, did not deliver what he considered was a crucial message to his officers, for which he was disciplined, and was later hospitalised and repatriated to Australia. His symptoms and unusual behaviour led to a diagnosis of epilepsy which caused him not to be able to work as a mechanic because he was not permitted to drive.…
Continue reading Laughton and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Laughton and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 920
- Case
- [2005] AATA 920
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether Mr Laughton's bipolar illness and allergic rhinitis, and chronic sinusitis were caused by his service in the armed forces. The court was also required to determine the impact of these conditions on Mr Laughton's capacity for work and his entitlement to a pension at the special rate. The court needed to review the decisions of both the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans Review Board, which had upheld the Commission's refusal of Mr Laughton's claims.
In delivering its decision, the court noted that Mr Laughton's bipolar illness was accepted as war-caused at the beginning of the hearing, but this did not affect the court's consideration of the other conditions. The court concluded that the allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis were not war-caused. It found that the evidence did not support a causal link between these conditions and Mr Laughton's service. Additionally, the court examined Mr Laughton's capacity for work, concluding that his ability to work was not significantly impaired by the recognised war-caused condition, bipolar illness. As a result, the court determined that the refusal of the claims for pension at the special rate was justified.
The orders affirmed the decisions of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans Review Board, refusing Mr Laughton's claims that his allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis were war-caused. The decision was made by consent of the parties under section 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
Orders
Orders of the court
Matter N1999/1271 - By consent of the parties, and pursuant to section 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal, affirms the decision of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans Review Board to refuse Mr Robert Laughton’s claims that allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis are war-caused.
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.