Laughton and Repatriation Commission
[2005] AATA 920
•21 September 2005
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. This was eventually found to be incorrect, and he was diagnosed with anxiety hysteria. In the meantime, however, it caused him great difficulties with regard to his life, his work and his earnings.
2. Mr Laughton has been separated from his wife for four or five years now, mainly because she cannot cope with his behaviour. Mrs Laughton told us that her husband was a changed man after he returned from his operational service, and was very impatient and quite irrascible.
3. Mr Laughton was referred to various doctors for assessment, and in 1998, his treating psychiatrist, Dr Keith Chee diagnosed him with chronic PTSD of moderate severity, and bipolar disorder, arising out of his war service. Dr Chee considered that both Mr Laughton’s PTSD and bipolar disorder dated back to the 1950s. The anxiety hysteria was recognised by the Repatriation Commission to have been bipolar disorder dating back to 14 September 1960, and was accepted as war-caused.
4. After his discharge in 1958, Mr Laughton worked in a number of short term positions, many of which terminated because he found he could not work with other people, had unrealistic expectations, and behaved inappropriately. He looks back and attributes that all to due to his bipolar disorder, his war-caused illness.
5. The two main positions which Mr Laughton held after his discharge were as a mechanic for the Department of Civil Aviation, and as senior mechanic for Ansett Airlines for eight years. He behaved inappropriately at Ansett, giving away company property to employees and using petrol for his private vehicle, leading in 1984 to his dismissal after being charged with stealing. Mr Laughton says that in that year, he had attended an Anzac Day reunion of Army people for the first time since Malaya, and suffered a breakdown as a result.
6. After his separation from Ansett, Mr Laughton attempted from 1985 to develop a caravan park, which was unsuccessful due to his behaviour with the Council, with employees, and generally not coping due to his bipolar disorder. The project collapsed in the mid-nineties leaving him with debts of some $1,700,000. Mr Laughton has not worked in paid employment since leaving Ansett, and although he says he would like to work, and has been actively looking for work over the years, he has been unable to gain relevant employment. He cannot concentrate to complete a job, even at voluntary work, and has been hampered by his bipolar disorder in projects such as Hunter@Work, and teaching apprentices. He continues to do the latter for a couple of hours a day on a casual basis.
7. We found that Mr Laughton could not work more than eight hours a week due to his war-caused injury or disease alone, and found that he had suffered loss of income as a result. He is eligible for pension at the Special Rate.
ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
8. At the commencement of the Hearing, the parties handed up consent decisions in both matters, N1999/1271 and N2004/832, leaving the Tribunal to decide only whether Mr Laughton was eligible for pension at the Special Rate pursuant to section 24 of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986, (“the Act”), or the Intermediate Rate pursuant to section 23 of the Act during the assessment period, (commencing on 28 February 1998, and concluding on the day the Tribunal made its decision, 21 September 2005).
9. That included deciding:
· Is Mr Laughton’s incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease 70% or more; and
· Is Mr Laughton totally and permanently incapacitated, that is, is his incapacity from war-caused injury or disease of such a nature of itself alone, as to render him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week; and
· Is Mr Laughton by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or disease or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that he was undertaking, and is, therefore suffering a loss of salary, earnings or wages, that he would not be suffering if he were free from that incapacity.
10. The consent decisions were as follows:
· In Matter N1999/1271, the parties agreed on 30 May 2005, that the decision of the Respondent to refuse Mr Laughton’s claims in respect of allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis be affirmed by the Tribunal.
· In Matter N2004/832, the parties agreed on 30 May 2005, that the decision of the Repatriation Commission which held that Mr Laughton’s bipolar disorder was not related to service be set aside. The parties agreed that in substitution therefor, 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.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. The general facts were not in dispute. Mr Laughton was born on 16 August 1933, and served in the Australian Army from 3 June 1952 until 17 January 1958, when he was discharged medically unfit. His operational service was from 8 October 1955 until 20 March 1956. Mr Laughton was under 65 at the date of application.
12. Mr Laughton has the following accepted service-related disabilities:
· Bilateral sensorineural hearing loss
· Tinea
· Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
· Bipolar disorder (previously anxiety hysteria)
13. Mr Laughton has the following non-accepted service-related disabilities:
· Chronic sinusitis
· Allergic rhinitis
14. At the Hearing the Tribunal had in evidence before it documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the “T-Documents” (Exhibits R1 & R2), and the various other documents tendered by the parties.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
statutory framework
15. The relevant legislation in this case, is the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986, (“the Act”), and the standard of proof is that of reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal pursuant to section 120(4) of the Act. That meant, as Tamberlin J noted in Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564:
“The AAT had to determine, to its reasonable satisfaction, whether the applicant’s war-caused disabilities were the only reason for him not being in remunerative employment. Burchett J in Cavell stated that this determination is not to be made upon ‘nice philosophical distinctions’, equally it is not to be made upon complex calculations of the probability that an intervening event may have occurred. The approach is to be guided by commonsense with an ‘eye to reality’.”
16. Eligibility for Special Rate of pension is dealt with pursuant to section 24 of the Act, and for the Intermediate Rate, pursuant to section 23 of the Act. Mr Laughton was born on 16 August 1933, and made his application on 28 February 1998, and hence was under 65 years at the date of application.
17. Section 23 of the Act follows as relevant.
“Intermediate rate of pension
(1) This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa) the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab) the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a) either:
(i) the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
... , and
(b) the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is, of itself alone, of such a nature as to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work otherwise than on a part-time basis or intermittently; and
(c) the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free from that incapacity; and
(d) section 24 or 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) shall not be taken to be fulfilled in respect of a veteran who is undertaking, or is capable of undertaking, work of a particular kind:
(a) if the veteran undertakes, or is capable of undertaking, that work for 50 per centum or more of the time (excluding overtime) ordinarily worked by persons engaged in work of that kind on a full-time basis; or
(b) in a case where paragraph (a) is inapplicable to the work which the veteran is undertaking or capable of undertaking—if the veteran is undertaking, or is capable of undertaking, that work for 20 or more hours per week.
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a) a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, to the extent set out in paragraph (1)(b) shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity:
(i) if the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both;
(ii) if the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; or
(iii) if the veteran has been engaged in remunerative work on a part-time basis or intermittently for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; and
(b) where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented, by reason of that incapacity, from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking.”
18. Section 24 specifies three criteria that a veteran must meet in order to be entitled to the Special Rate of pension.
“Special rate of pension
(1) This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa) the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab) the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a) either:
(i) the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
…and
(b) the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(c) the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity; and
(d) section 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a) a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:
(i) the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; or
(ii) the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and
(b) where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented by reason of that incapacity from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking.”
APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 23(1) AND 24(1) OF THE ACT
Application of sections 23(1)(a) and 24(1)(a) - Is Mr Laughton’s incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease 70% or more?
19. To satisfy the tests in sections 23(1)(a)(i) and 24(1)(a)(i) of the Act, requires that the Veteran’s degree of incapacity, assessed in accordance with GARP, must be a minimum of 70%. We noted that the Repatriation Commission decided on 22 May 1998, that effective 26 November 1997, Mr Laughton’s rate of pension should be 60%.
20. The dates of the assessment period for payment of pension to Mr Laughton are 28 February 1998, the date on which the Veteran lodged his application for increase of pension, and ending on the day this Tribunal made its decision, that is 21 September 2005, (section 19(9) of the Act).
21. On the basis of the acceptance of Mr Laughton’s condition of bipolar disorder as a war-caused injury or disease on and from 14 September 1960, in the consent decision of 30 May 2005, (in Matter N2004/832), the parties agreed that the Applicant’s rate of pension be increased to 90% of the General Rate.
22. Mr Doube however, submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the earliest date of effect for Mr Laughton’s increase in pension to 90% of the General Rate should, be 10 February 2000. In doing so, he relied on Dr Chee’s reports, in particular that of 10 February 2000. Mr Doube also submitted that none Dr Anderson’s assessments of Mr Laughton took him to more than 60% of the General Rate before 10 February 2000.
23. We were mindful of Dr Chee’s assessment of Mr Laughton in his report of 10 February 2000 on which the Respondent relied, and considered also the earlier reports of Dr Chee. We did not find that any of the opinions expressed by Dr Chee in the report of 10 February 2000 would not have applied to Mr Laughton back in February 1998 when he first applied for an increase in pension. Dr Chee has been treating Mr Laughton since 24 April 1998 (Exhibit R1, T18). In that report he diagnosed chronic PTSD of moderate severity arising out of the incidents in 1955, and manifestations of a bipolar disorder. We were mindful that Mr Laughton’s bipolar disorder was accepted as war-caused on and from 14 September 1960. We were also satisfied from the evidence of the Veteran, his wife, and Drs Dinnen and Pickering, that Mr Laughton has suffered serious psychiatric incapacity since returning from Malaya. As can be seen from the paragraphs that follow, we were also satisfied that Mr Laughton has suffered incapacity for work within the terms of the legislation at least from the time he was dismissed from Ansett in 1984.
24. We accepted Dr Dinnen’s opinion that Mr Laughton’s PTSD was subsumed into his bipolar disorder which was his major war-caused psychiatric illness, and noted that Dr Dinnen’s comment that he agreed with Dr Pickering on the contribution of the PTSD to Mr Laughton’s overall psychiatric illness (bipolar disorder).
25. We were satisfied that Mr Laughton’s rate of pension was accordingly 90% of the General Rate, that is above the 70% required to meet the conditions in sections 23(1)(a), and 24(1)(a) of the Act on and from the date of application for an increase in pension on 28 February 1998.
Application of sections 23(1)(b) and 24(1)(b) of the Act - Is Mr Laughton totally and permanently incapacitated, that is, is his incapacity from war-caused injury or disease of such a nature of itself alone, as to render him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week?
26. To satisfy the conditions in section 24(1)(b) of the Act, the Veteran must be totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the Veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, must be of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the Veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week.
27. In the case of the Intermediate Rate pension, the inability to work must be for periods aggregating more than 20 hours per week
28. Mr Doube submitted that in considering the tests in section 24(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal first consider section 28. As relevant section 28 follows:
“Capacity to undertake remunerative work
In determining, for the purposes of paragraph 23(1)(b) or 24(1)(b), whether a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is incapable of undertaking remunerative work, and in determining for the purposes of section 24A whether a veteran who is so incapacitated is capable of undertaking remunerative work, the Commission shall have regard to the following matters only:
(a) the vocational, trade and professional skills, qualifications and experience of the veteran;
(b) the kinds of remunerative work which a person with the skills, qualifications and experience referred to in paragraph (a) might reasonably undertake; and
(c) the degree to which the physical or mental impairment of the veteran as a result of the injury or disease, or both, has reduced his or her capacity to undertake the kinds or remunerative work referred to in paragraph (b).”
29. Mr Doube referred to Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 55 ALD 207 in regard to section 28(a) of the Act. We were mindful that Chambers (supra) was a decision of the Full Federal Court, in which their Honours considered section 28 of the Act, and held that neither the Judge at first instance, neither the Tribunal had erred. Their Honours stated at paragraph 38:
“Section 28 gives directions concerning the matters to which the Commission must have regard in determining, for the purposes of s. 23(1)(b) and s.24(1)(b), whether an incapacitated veteran is incapable of undertaking remunerative work. Section 28(a) also directs that only the three specified matters are to be taken into account in making the determination. In this respect the section is exhaustive: Freeman v Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority (1985) 5 AAR 156 …”
30. We were mindful further that their Honours in Chambers (supra) commented that the authorities strongly supported the view that a narrow approach was not to be taken as to the construction of sections 28(a) or (b). Their Honours said, referring to the Second Reading Speech in relation to the 1985 amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920, at paragraph 56 of the decision, that: “… there is nothing in the Minister’s comments suggesting an intention that the language in s.28(a) should be construed narrowly. On the contrary, the Minister observed (at 2646) that the special rate of pension ‘was designed for severely disabled veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themselves or their families.’ ”
31. Mr Doube submitted in regard to section 28(b) of the Act, that the Tribunal consider what type of remunerative work the Applicant might undertake, submitting that the state of the labour market could not be taken into account. (Chambers (supra)).
32. In regard to section 28(c) of the Act, Mr Doube submitted that the Tribunal, disregarding the non-accepted disabilities, consider to what degree Mr Laughton is incapacitated for work.
33. In considering whether Mr Laughton was totally and permanently incapacitated at the relevant time, that is whether his incapacity from war-caused injury or disease was of such a nature as of itself alone to render him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for more periods aggregating more than eight hours a week , we were mindful of section 28 of the Act and Chambers (supra). That is, we were mindful that we could take into account his vocational, trade and professional skills, qualifications and experience, the kinds of remunerative work which a person with his skills, qualifications and experience might reasonably undertake, and the degree to which his physical or mental impairment as a result of his bipolar illness, or both, has reduced his capacity to undertake that remunerative work, but not extraneous factors.
34. In that regard, we noted that in 1952, on joining the Army, Mr Laughton trained as a motor mechanic, and after various events, including a motor cycle accident in 1955, he was discharged medically unfit in 1958. In his statement dated 24 February 2005, (Exhibit A1), Mr Laughton detailed the many mainly technical positions he has held since leaving the Army. Notably, with the exception of the position at the Department of Civil Aviation and Ansett, they have all been of short duration, due to Mr Laughton’s disposition, arising out of his war-caused psychiatric conditions, substantially, bipolar disorder.
35. He worked doing small mechanical jobs in his back yard for approximately a year after leaving the army; he worked with a friend at a service station for six months; casually with an engineering firm manufacturing and fitting seat belts and surgical aids; as a mechanic at British Standard Machinery for three months and as an apprentice master for Truck Sales and Service for two years. Mr Laughton said in his statement that at the latter, he was left to work alone, and hence was able to cope whereas with the others, problems arose because he was unable to get on with people. Mr Laughton has detailed several further short term positions he held in his Statement.
36. At the Department of Civil Aviation, as a senior mechanic, he worked installing generator sets and navigational aids. He has worked in industrial machinery sales, was involved in developing a bobcat, and moved on to a service station partnership which he left after a short time. Mr Laughton later returned to the Department of Civil Aviation where he worked alone for eight or twelve years (Mr Laughton’s evidence particularly in relation to time periods has been affected by his bipolar disorder causing memory problems), in charge of maintenance for flying boats, and air sea rescue.
37. At Ansett Airlines, which Mr Laughton joined in 1976, and where he remained for eight years, he was a senior mechanic, ground engineering service. We noted that here too Mr Laughton’s memory failed him when he was giving his evidence, because he referred to leaving Ansett in 1988 when the facts showed it was 1984. He gave evidence regarding his dismissal, the circumstances of which are mentioned elsewhere in these Reasons for Decision. Following his time at Ansett, Mr Laughton moved to an engineering firm where he was involved, he said, in developing the first seat belts in the world for private cars.
38. In 1972 Mr Laughton bought land to farm, and to develop a caravan park, a project for which he borrowed a large amount of money. This project commenced in 1985, and had failed by the mid-nineties for reasons discussed elsewhere in these Reasons for Decision. Mr Laughton said that he had not been in any paid employment since 1998. He gave evidence however that he was always interested in continuing to work, and seeking work, and when he was unable to secure paid work, moved towards voluntary, community work. In 2000, he founded an organisation called “Australia@Work”, of which he had been the chair, and from which he was deposed. It has since been renamed “Hunter@Work”.
39. Mr Laughton told us that he liked training people, and has been training mechanics, and gas fitters. He said that he still has a training project with a fully equipped workshop where he trains young people on a casual basis, but that due to his illness, he cannot manage more than a couple of hours a day.
40. We were able from the evidence, to discern that Mr Laughton has good technical skills, is well qualified, and has always been very well motivated to work. We were also satisfied that he is innovative, and has been able to carry out all manner of technical and mechanical work, which he has demonstrated throughout his work life. That is the remunerative work which he was undertaking and for which he is skilled.
41. We were also satisfied that all of that virtually ended in 1984 with Mr Laughton’s dismissal from Ansett. None of the other ventures such as the service station partnership, and in particular the caravan park has been a success, and Mr Laughton has lost a large amount of money, and ended up owing in the order of $1,700,000 in connection with the attempted development of the caravan park. He has not been successful at sustaining continuous paid employment since 1984. We had of course to ask ourselves why that was.
42. Both the Veteran’s evidence, that of his wife, and of the doctors who have treated and examined him, confirm that Mr Laughton has suffered psychological illness for a long time. In the early 1950s, during operational service, Mr Laughton was hospitalised for headache and vomiting, and discharged with a diagnosis of “debility and nervous asthenia.” He subsequently suffered a motor cycle accident, and was then incorrectly diagnosed as suffering epilepsy. This curtailed his work substantially because of the loss of his driving licence. He was diagnosed as having anxiety hysteria in 1958/9, and had his driving licence restored. Mr Laughton corroborated the evidence of his wife when he stated that since 1957, he has suffered “uncontrollable fits of rage, and then became depressed ..”.
43. Mrs Norma Laughton gave oral evidence, and in her statement at Exhibit A8, stated in relation to her husband’s capacity to work, that: “Since Bob left work with Ansett, as a result of what we now know to be bipolar, we have lived on the pension … While Bob still has the qualifications and skills to work, medically he is unable to do so, his temperament is so unstable. I am sure he believes he can still work, but it takes him days to do what he would have been able to do in a couple of hours previously….”
44. We noted that in 1984, Mr Laughton attended a reunion of his colleagues from Malaya, following which he had a breakdown. He then behaved inappropriately in his employment with Ansett Airlines, gave away fuel and items to staff, and used fuel inappropriately for private vehicles. Mr Laughton was charged and dismissed from Ansett. We noted Mr Doube’s submission that Mr Laughton was responsible for his actions, and dismissed because of a criminal charge, rather than illness.
45. We noted that Dr J Grady, a psychiatrist, treated Mr Laughton in 1984/5 for depression, and dealt with him at the time of his dismissal from Ansett. In cross-examination Mr Laughton was referred to the examination by Dr Grady, in February 1985, (Exhibit R1, T3M/48(i)), as a result of which Dr Grady had recorded that the Applicant’s difficulty in finding work was age related, and in some respects, because he was overqualified. In his reply to Mr Doube during cross-examination, Mr Laughton insisted he had no problems with age in regard to employment. He said that regardless of what Dr Grady had written, he had never been refused a job because of his age. He became very agitated at the Hearing, but then recognising his agitation, took medication, and subsequently calmed down. The Tribunal was satisfied the reaction Mr Laughton exhibited was a manifestation of his medical condition as described by both the Applicant and his wife, and an example of why Mr Laughton could not, even when he was employed, work with other people.
46. We noted that Mr Doube submitted that it was not Mr Laughton’s war-caused conditions alone, but his age, his time out of the work force, and his PTSD which contributed to his incapacity and inability to work.
47. Notwithstanding some inconsistencies in the evidence regarding whether age and time out of the workforce had any influence on Mr Laughton’s job prospects, we accepted from his evidence that Mr Laughton was always very keen to work, and continues to be. We did not accept Mr Doube’s submissions that factors other than Mr Laughton’s war-caused disabilities were the cause of his incapacity and inability to work.
48. Mr Laughton was adamant that after leaving Ansett and commencing to develop the caravan park project, he had worked, but not in meaningful employment. He said that he applied for jobs because he was not one to sit down and wait, so he was doing unpaid work, helping people, and fixing things. Mr Laughton attributed his lack of success with obtaining paid employment to the poor documentation of his qualifications in the Army records, stating that employers were not satisfied with what he could show them, and that once he disclosed that he had been discharged medically unfit, they did not want to employ him. When questioned, he said he could not recall specific potential employers, submitting that he had been “trying to forget” that period. Mr Laughton said that he liked training people, had been training mechanics, and gas fitters, and still had a training project with a fully equipped workshop where he trained young people on a casual basis. He said that was because he could not do more than a couple of hours a day due to his illness. He also said that in 2000, he founded an organisation called “Australia @ Work” of which he had been the chair, he said. It had since been renamed “Hunter @ Work”. (Exhibit A3). Mr Laughton said that his dream to end his life as a college teacher and teach apprentices at TAFE was unable to be fulfilled. He said that he tried to enter TAFE as a teacher in 1957, but that TAFE would not employ him due to his medical record. We noted he had also been expelled from the Labour Party for behaving inappropriately and breaching Party rules.
49. We accepted his explanation that due to his war-caused illness bipolar disorder, his perception was that nothing was ever done well enough, and that he, accordingly, could not get on with people. He explained that he could only work alone, and described the experience at Ansett when he was in charge of the workshop, as one where no one related to what he was saying. He said that he was uptight, and working 18 – 20 hours a day. Mr Laughton admitted he had made irrational decisions, used Ansett petrol for his private vehicle, and had given away equipment to the workers, which he should not have done. He explained he had been charged over those actions, but that the charges had been dismissed. Mr Laughton said that but for his illness, he would have done very well at Ansett, and was at the top of his profession there. He added that but for what had happened: “l’d be at the top of my field. I’d still be working. I love working.” We were mindful that the inappropriate behaviour at Ansett had occurred after Mr Laughton’s dramatic psychological reaction to meeting his colleagues from Malaya on Anzac Day 1984 for the first time since the 1950s.
50. In regard to the caravan park project which commenced in 1985, the Veteran told the Tribunal that he planned to use local labour, his “own intellectual property”, and money from the State Bank. He admitted that he had managed it badly, paying people excessively, treating his wife badly, and arguing with the authorities to the extent that he ended up losing both properties when the project wound up. He said that it was due to a manic phase, and was a bad time in his life. Mrs Laughton also attributed the failure of the project to the way her husband behaved, throwing the Council inspectors out of the property, his unrealistic expectations and bad weather.
51. Mrs Laughton told the Tribunal that her husband had been a happy, go-lucky person before going to Malaya, and that on his return he was not the same person, and often lost his temper. She said that due to his bipolar disorder, her husband had behaved badly towards her to the extent that her nerves could no longer take it, and she has now been separated from him for the past four to five years.
52. We were mindful that Mr Laughton was unable to be precise about dates, for example, misstating the date of dismissal from Ansett to various doctors, and being unable to give details of positions for which he had applied. Dr Dinnen described the Applicant’s account given to him at examination as “overinclusive and rambling” as well as “somewhat unreliable as to his recollection of the temporal sequence of events.” We accepted that Mr Laughton’s unreliability as to dates, as also his frequent references to being overqualified for jobs, and describing himself as being best at everything, was due to his bipolar illness.
53. We were satisfied that notwithstanding Mr Laughton’s qualifications, and particularly his experience in matters technical, his illness, in particular bipolar disorder, which has been accepted as war-caused from 14 September 1960, and to a lesser extent PTSD, (which we accepted had been subsumed into the bipolar), caused him substantial and longstanding difficulties in working, and in dealing with other people. Mr Laughton’s own evidence was that he could not get on with people because he was intolerant of their standards of work, stating that he therefore preferred to work alone. We were satisfied that this was due to his war-caused illnesses alone, in particular to his bipolar disorder. His relationships, and the way he handled particular jobs have been discussed above. Mr Laughton could not get on in a mechanics partnership. The employment at Ansett ended badly with Mr Laughton behaving in a way which caused his dismissal, and resulted in him being charged at law.
54. We have of course also considered the medical evidence in coming to a decision regarding Mr Laughton in relation to sections 23(1)(b) and 24(1)(b) of the Act, mindful that by 1998, Dr Chee, his treating psychiatrist diagnosed Mr Laughton as suffering PTSD and bipolar disorder (R2,T6), but did not, in that report, comment upon Mr Laughton’s capacity to work. Dr Chee first made a formal assessment of Mr Laughton’s capacity for work in his report dated 10 February 2000 in which he stated that: “Mr Laughton’s symptoms would preclude him being employable in any situation … He was described as ‘overbearing’ to staff, his manic symptoms caused much financial loss … He would also be unfit to work in any capacity as an engineer which he orIginally trained for.” Having considered Dr Chee’s earlier report, we were satisfied that those same traits described in the report of 10 February 2000 were present when Dr Chee first reported on Mr Laughton in 1998.
55. Dr Archar reporting in 1998, commented on Mr Laughton’s psychiatric illness and poor concentration affecting work.
56. Dr Dinnen’s reports were Exhibits A4 and A5, and he gave oral evidence before the Tribunal. Dr Dinnen said that he agreed with Dr Pickering regarding Mr Laughton’s bipolar disorder. He explained that bipolar disorder was not just a mood disorder, but that it affected memory and concentration, included potential for frustration, and social adjustment, disrupted thought and affect, and left residual cumulative damage between episodes. Dr Dinnen emphasised that Mr Laughton’s intelligence which was evidenced by his inventiveness and projects, was obvious, but that due to his illness, he could not concentrate for lengthy periods, could not attend to detail, and could not follow his ideas through, and put them into effect.
57. Dr Dinnen also reported on his interview with Mrs Laughton in which she had told Dr Dinnen that her husband’s illness as it is presently manifested had been present since he returned from Malaya. Dr Dinnen considered that the influence of the PTSD on Mr Laughton was 10% as compared to the 90% for the bipolar disorder, and that PTSD had been subsumed into the bipolar disorder. Dr Pickering stated that: “The mood disorder is contributing to 90% of the current psychiatric impairment, and would have contributed to at least that since it first began in 1984 or thereabouts.” (Exhibit R2, T19).
58. Dr Pickering referred in his report dated 23 September 2003 (Exhibit R2, T19), to the early motorcycle incident, and recorded that Mr Laughton had consulted Dr Grady with depression in 1984/5, adding that the Veteran’s bipolar disorder also dated to that period. Dr Pickering opined that the PTSD related back, and was caused by, the military service in Malaya.
59. In his report at Exhibit R4 dated 26 August 2004, Dr Pickering referred to additional information obtained from reports of Dr Chee, Mrs Laughton and their daughter, which influenced him to diagnose Mr Laughton’s bipolar disorder as commencing prior to the 1980s when he was treated for depression, and being connected temporally and causally to the severe psychosocial and physical stressors of the military service in Malaya.
60. Mr Doube however suggested that 10% contribution by the PTSD as found by Drs Dinnen and Pickering was not insignificant, and meant that it was not the bipolar illness alone which caused any inability Mr Laughton had to work. We accepted Dr Dinnen’s opinion that the PTSD, also a war-caused condition, had been subsumed into the bipolar disorder, and were satisfied in any case that a 10% contribution was quite minor, and that the bipolar disorder was by far the most significant illness. Both are war-caused conditions.
61. We noted that Dr T Anderson, a consultant occupational physician assessed Mr Laughton on two occasions, the first in January 2000, (Exhibit R2,T7), and again in a report dated 1 March 2004, which was before the Tribunal as Exhibit R5. In the latter, Dr Anderson reported that Mr Laughton had not been working in an employed capacity since he first saw him in 2000. Dr Anderson reported on Mr Laughton’s self report of people “not tolerating him and his outbursts”. In his report he rated Mr Laughton at “5” and “unable to work” , yet considered that he “would seem easily capable of working more than 8 hours a week … and would also probably be able to work quite comfortably for 20 hours a week …”. We did not give much weight to the report of Dr Anderson because of its internal inconsistency.
62. We were satisfied to the requisite standard that Mr Laughton is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, his incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, being bipolar disorder (and to a lesser extent PTSD, which we accepted on the basis of Dr Dinnen’s opinion has been subsumed into the bipolar disorder), is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week. We believe that has been so since 1984, but are constrained by the date of application, and hence the assessment date. We have fully taken into account the requirements of section 28 of the Act. We were satisfied that Mr Laughton’s inability to work has not been due to age, time out of the workforce, or other factors outside the bounds of section 28, noting also the statement of Madgwick J in Hendy (supra), that age and time out of the work force served to impair a veteran’s chances to obtain remunerative work. Accordingly we were satisfied that Mr Laughton’s incapacity to work satisfies the requirements of section 23(1)(b) and section 24(1)(b) of the Act.
Application of sections 23(1)(c) and 24(1)(c) of the Act - Is Mr Laughton by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or disease or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that he was undertaking, and is, therefore suffering a loss of salary, earnings or wages, that he would not be suffering if he were free from that incapacity?
63. In order for Mr Laughton to satisfy the tests in sections 23(1)(c) and 24(1)(c) of the Act, we must be satisfied that he has been by reason of the incapacity from his war-caused injury or illness alone prevented from undertaking remunerative work that he was undertaking, and has by reason thereof suffered a loss of earnings that he would not have suffered or be suffering if he were free of his bipolar disorder.
64. We noted that with respect to the requirements of section 24(1)(c), the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1 where the Court indicated that the issues before the Tribunal were:
“1.What was the relevant ‘remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking’ within the meaning of s 24(1)(c) of the Act?
2.Is the veteran, by reason of war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, prevented from continuing to undertake that work?
3.If the answer to question 2 is yes, is the war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, the only factor or factors preventing the veteran from continuing to undertake that work?
4.If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are, in each case, yes, is the veteran by reason of being prevented from continuing to undertake that work, suffering a loss of salary, wages or earnings on his own account that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity?”
65. We noted Mr Colborne’s submissions that Mr Laughton was in a consistent state of not being employed, and that he has been incapacitated for work since being dismissed from Ansett in 1984 due to his actions during a manic phase. Mr Colborne submitted that the Veteran’s condition had been consistent, and carried over into the caravan park episode. He urged a practical common sense approach by the Tribunal as discussed in Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534 with which we agreed.
66. We noted Mr Doube’s submission that Mr Laughton had been dismissed from Ansett for theft, and that the criminal act and dismissal could not be attributed to his bipolar disorder alone. Neither could the failure of the caravan park project be attributed to his bipolar disorder alone. The latter had to do with lawyers, the State Bank and other influences, he submitted.
67. FIRST FLENTJAR QUESTION Turning then to Flentjar (supra), we considered the relevant remunerative work which Mr Laughton was undertaking within the meaning of section 24(1)(c) of the Act. We were mindful that Mr Laughton’s qualifications and experience meant that for him, the relevant remunerative work was of a technical nature, such as being a senior mechanic, installing generator sets, being a partner in a service station and the various other technical activities in which he had been engaged as noted in the paragraphs above.
68. SECOND FLENTJAR QUESTION In approaching the second question in Flentjar (supra), we had to ascertain whether Mr Laughton, was, by reason of his war-caused injuries or disease both prevented from undertaking that work. We were satisfied that notwithstanding several short term engagements after being dismissed from Ansett in 1984, Mr Laughton has not engaged in relevant remunerative work since that time. He attempted to develop the caravan park which failed in the mid-nineties, and that he has not been in paid employment at all since 1998.
69. We were satisfied from the evidence that Mr Laughton’s actions and behaviour at Ansett were directly as a result of his bipolar disorder, and in particular a manic phase, which ultimately led to a criminal charge and dismissal. It is likely the breakdown in 1984 was associated with the meeting with other veterans described in the evidence. He was also being treated at Concord Hospital at that time. We were mindful of Mrs Laughton’s evidence that their income was restricted to social security payments and superannuation after her husband separated from Ansett.
70. The only longer term project commenced, but not brought to completion, was the caravan park, and we were satisfied that Mr Laughton’s comportment there, in remunerating employees excessively, arguing with the Council, and making irresponsible decisions, were a direct result of his war-caused bipolar disorder which prevented him from undertaking that work .
71. We have referred in the paragraphs above to the opinions of Drs Pickering, Chee, Achar and Dinnen with regard to Mr Laughton’s capacity to work.
72. Dr Chee opined in a report of 10 February 2000 that: “Mr Laughton’s symptoms would preclude him being employable in any situation … He was described as ‘overbearing’ to staff, his manic symptoms caused much financial loss … He would also be unfit to work in any capacity as an engineer which he orIginally trained for.” We accepted that the opinion of Dr Chee applied equally in 1998.
73. Dr Archar reporting in 1998, commented on Mr Laughton’s psychiatric illness and poor concentration affecting work.
74. Dr Dinnen agreed with Dr Pickering who attributed 90% of Mr Laughton’s psychiatric impairment to the bipolar disorder and stated that: “The mood disorder is contributing to 90% of the current psychiatric impairment, and would have contributed to at least that since it first began in 1984 or thereabouts.” (Exhibit R2, T19).
75. Dr Pickering noted that Mr Laughton had consulted Dr Grady with depression in 1984/5, adding that the Veteran’s bipolar disorder also dated to that period. Dr Pickering opined that the PTSD related back, and was caused by, the military service in Malaya.
76. We have already noted above that we did not give much weight to the report of Dr Anderson because of its internal inconsistency.
77. We find that Mr Laughton has been by reason of his war-caused disability of bipolar disorder been prevented from undertaking the relevant remunerative work for which he is trained, and that he had been undertaking.
78. THIRD FLENTJAR QUESTION We were satisfied that Mr Laughton was, by reason of his war-caused illness prevented from undertaking the relevant remunerative work referred to in the first Flentjar question. We were also satisfied that war-caused illness was the only factor preventing Mr Laughton from continuing to undertake that work. It would be easy to say that age and time out of the work force were factors, and it is likely that time out of the work force does not assist with finding relevant remunerative work (Hendy (supra)), but we were satisfied from the evidence that it was due to Mr Laughton’s bipolar disorder.
79. We noted also that in Hendy (supra), Madgwick J considered the application of the phrase, “genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work”, as prescribed in section 24(2)(b), by direct reference to the following conclusion of Spender J in Hall v Repatriation Commission (1994) 33 ALD 454 (at 461):
"It seems to me that the question of whether a veteran has been `genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work’, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing to so seek has to be addressed in a realistic way, having regard to the nature and extent of the incapacity. Many veterans are permanently incapacitated by war-caused injury or disease for any form of remunerative work, and the requirement that such persons should be genuinely seeking work seems to involve something of a charade.” [Tribunal emphasis]
80. FOURTH FLENTJAR QUESTION Being satisfied that questions two and three as posed in Flentjar (supra) have been answered in the affirmative, we then considered question four. We had to consider whether Mr Laughton was by reason of being prevented from continuing to undertake his relevant remunerative work, suffering a loss of salary, wages or earnings on his own account that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity. Mrs Laughton’s evidence in that regard was quite clear – in her statement, she said that “Since Bob left Ansett, as a result of what we now know is bipolar, we have lived on the pension, super payments and his occasional consultancy and automotive work.” She also said: “While Bob still has the qualifications and skills to work, medically he is unable to do so, his temperament is so unstable. I am sure he believes he can still work, but it takes him days to do what he would have been able to do in a couple of hours previously.”
81. Mr King of Tony King Automotives gave evidence that with Mr Laughton’s skills his earning capacity would be in excess of $2,000 per week, and indicated that he would re-employ Mr Laughton provided he was well. However he also described Mr Laughton as having mood swings and lack of concentration making that impossible.
82. We were satisfied that Mr Laughton’s attempts at community work, the Hunter@Work project, and the part-time training of apprentices, were manifestations of his very keen interest to remain at work, and that he had been trying to obtain employment even after his caravan park project failed in the mid-nineties We were also satisfied that he was not able to follow through on the Hunter@Work project, and that that was due to his war-caused illness alone. Neither could Mr Laughton realise, as a result of his war-caused illness alone, his dream of ending his working career as a TAFE teacher.
83. We were satisfied that after the position at Ansett which ended in 1984, Mr Laughton worked for short periods in various positions, but that he was by reason of his bipolar disorder prevented from continuing to undertake his relevant remunerative work, and was suffering a loss of salary, wages or earnings on his own account that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity.
84. We were satisfied that the date of effect for Special Rate pension for Mr Laughton is 28 February 1998.
SECTION 24(2)
85. Mr Doube also referred to section 24(2) of the Act, citing that other factors such as age, time out of the work force, PTSD (accepted as war-caused on 8 July 2002), and other factors, contributed to Mr Laughton’s incapacity.
86. Mr Doube also submitted that Mr Laughton failed in relation to questions 3 and 4 of Flentjar (supra). He submitted that the loss of employment from Ansett was a matter of Mr Laughton’s free will, and even if affected by bipolar disorder, that disorder was not the cause of the criminal activity at Ansett.
87. Mr Doube also drew the attention of the Tribunal to section 24(2)(b) of the Act and the case of Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) 81 ALD 625. He submitted there was no indication Mr Laughton was seeking work at the commencement of the assessment period. He also emphasised, referring to Sheehyv Repatriation Commission (1996) 41 ALD 205, and Mr Laughton’s evidence of his involvement in, and work with the caravan park project, that the concept of work in section 24(1)(c) was that of effective work, and not remunerative work.
88. As discussed in the paragraphs above, we were satisfied that Mr Laughton was eligible for pension at the Special Rate on and from 28 February 1998, that is, that he has been by reason of the incapacity from his war-caused injury or illness alone prevented from undertaking remunerative work that he was undertaking, and has by reason thereof suffered a loss of earnings that he would not have suffered or be suffering if he were free of his bipolar disorder.
89. We were satisfied from the evidence that Mr Laughton has not been able to continue to do his relevant remunerative work since leaving Ansett in 1984. We were also satisfied that Mr Laughton was motivated to work, and that he was creative in his unsuccessful attempts to obtain and retain employment, and attempted the caravan park project in 1985. It did not turn out to be effective remunerative work. We were equally satisfied that the reasons the Veteran did not succeed were not due to being overqualified, or time out of the workforce, but that it was due to his accepted war-caused conditions alone. We were satisfied that due to his bipolar disorder Mr Laughton was unable to tolerate authority, unable to deal with other people in an employment setting, unable to set realistic standards for himself and others, and unable to concentrate on maintaining relevant remunerative employment.
90. We noted that Mr Laughton still teaches apprentices on a casual basis. We accepted that the teaching of the apprentices is sporadic, and not a regular daily activity, and were satisfied that Mr Laughton cannot undertake remunerative work aggregating more than eight hours per week. We accepted both Mr and Mrs Laughton’s evidence that due to his war-caused illness, the Veteran is unable to manage it except on a casual basis, and not more than a couple of hours a day. We also accepted Mrs Laughton’s evidence that it takes Mr Laughton much longer to work on tasks than previously.
91. We noted the evidence of Mr King, that if Mr Laughton were well, he would employ him as an alternative fuel expert, installing and repairing LPG and natural gas. He informed the Tribunal that Mr Laughton is a highly skilled and qualified motor mechanic who would be earning in excess of $2,000 per week if he were able to work.
92. We accepted that:
· the Veteran has had an inability to maintain relevant remunerative employment since his separation from Ansett in 1984;
· his poor judgment, a manifestation of his bipolar disorder, demonstrated through his activities at Ansett led to his dismissal;
· because of his war-caused illnesses alone, he has demonstrated inability to follow through on his personal projects such as the caravan park;
· because of his war-caused illnesses, he suffers inability to concentrate on tasks to complete them;
· the Veteran’s problems with the Australia@Work project arose because of his war-caused illnesses alone, and manifested as Mr Laughton’s unrealistic expectations and inabilities to deal with people;
· problems with membership of the Labour Party where his lack of judgment due to the bipolar disorder led him to breach fundamental rules, which resulted in him being expelled;
93. We were satisfied that Mr Laughton was genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, but was unable to realise his dream of ending his working life as a TAFE teacher, and training young people. He is to be commended, however, for his involvement on a part-time and voluntary basis of teaching young people for periods not extending to more than a couple of hours a day on an irregular basis at no fixed time, in his private workshop.
94. From the above noted incidents and occurrences, we were satisfied that Mr Laughton was by reason of his war-caused condition of bipolar disorder alone, prevented from undertaking work for which he is qualified, and that he has accordingly suffered, and is continuing to suffer a loss of salary, wages or earnings that he would not otherwise be suffering if he were free of the incapacity. Accordingly he satisfies the tests in section 24(1)(c) of the Act.
95. Accordingly, although we have noted Mr Doube’s submissions with regard to section 24(2) of the Act, are mindful of Sheehy (supra), and the ameliorating provisions of section 24(2)(b), so that Mr Laughton could qualify for pension at the Special Rate if we needed to apply the section, we have found above that he satisfies the “alone” test, and we do not find it necessary to further comment on the application of section 24(2).
DECISION
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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.
I certify that the 98 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member and Dr P Lynch, Member.
Signed:
AssociateDate of Hearing 30 and 31 May 2005
Date of Decision 21 September 2005
Counsel for the Applicant Mr C Colborne
Solicitor for the Applicant Ms J Buss, Legal Aid CommissionAdvocate for the Mr G Doube
Repatriation Commission
0
11
0