CATCHWORDS – VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – generalised anxiety disorder – alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence – gastro-oesophageal reflux disease – whether war caused – whether hypotheses consistent with Statements of Principles – whether material points to the clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder within two years of experiencing a stressful event – whether material points to the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse within two years of experiencing a severe stressor – decisions affirmed
Tribunal: Miss S A Forgie (Deputy President) Mr D J Trowse (Member) Date: 15 February, 2002 Place: Adelaide
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions of the respondent dated 15 April, 1999 and 13 December, 1999.
S A FORGIE Deputy President
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 28 August, 2000, the applicant, Mr Allan John Lees, applied for review of two decisions of the respondent, the Repatriation Commission ("the Commission") which were affirmed by a decision of the Veterans' Review Board ("VRB") dated 27 July, 2000. The first decision, dated 15 April, 1999, refused Mr Lees' claim that generalised anxiety disorder is a war-caused disease or injury within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act"). The second decision, dated 13 December, 1999, refused his claims for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.
At the hearing, Mr Lees was represented by Mr White and the Commission by its advocate, Mr Doube. The documents lodged pursuant to s. 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("T documents") were admitted in evidence together with a report of Dr John Carroll, a report of proceedings in relation to HMAS Sydney ("the Sydney") for May, 1971, a bundle of documents relating to the Sydney under cover of letter dated 2 February, 2001, a bundle of documents including extracts from articles, a report of Dr Ewer dated 15 December, 2000, a summary of Mr Lees' postings and a signal to the Sydney dated August, 1967, material assembled by Mr Robert Piper, a copy of a General Medical Examination and History dated 17…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Lees v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 98
Case
[2002] AATA 98
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Lees v Repatriation Commission was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where Mr Allan John Lees sought review of two decisions by the Repatriation Commission, affirming a decision of the Veterans' Review Board, that rejected his claims for compensation in respect of generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decisions. Mr Lees had served on the HMAS Sydney and HMAS Duchess during the Vietnam War. He claimed that he developed generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence, and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease as a result of his service. The Tribunal considered the statutory framework for determining whether Mr Lees' conditions are war-caused. The Tribunal found that Mr Lees suffered from generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The Tribunal rejected Mr Lees' claims as the medical evidence did not support the hypothesis that his conditions were war-caused. The Tribunal found that there was no material pointing to the clinical onset of Mr Lees' generalised anxiety disorder within two years of experiencing severe psychosocial stressors during his operational service. In relation to alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, the Tribunal found that there was no material pointing to the clinical onset of either of those conditions within two years of Mr Lees experiencing severe stressors. In relation to gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, the Tribunal found that there was no material pointing to Mr Lees' alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence having arisen out of, or been attributable to, Mr Lees' operational service. The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mr Lees' conditions were not war-caused.