Lloyd and Repatriation Commission

[2006] AATA 335

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 335

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/925

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		CLIVE LLOYD

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member B J McCabe

Date10 April 2006

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The applicant’s alcohol abuse/dependence condition is not related to his defence service. The decision under review is affirmed to that extent.

...................[Sgd]...............

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – application for a disability pension – applicant was subject to a number of assaults during service – applicants accepted alcohol abuse/dependence condition is not causally related to his service

Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 s 120

Lees and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 2

Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750

Robertson v Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668

Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 April 2006 Senior Member B J McCabe

introduction

1.      Clive William Lloyd is the applicant in these proceedings. Mr Lloyd claims he was the victim of a series of assaults while he served in the navy. The respondent accepts the applicant now suffers from generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) as a result of those experiences. It also acknowledges he has an alcohol abuse/dependence condition, although that condition may be in remission.

2.      Mr Lloyd has applied for a disability pension under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA). The respondent rejected the claim. It says the applicant’s alcohol abuse and dependence condition is not causally linked to his defence service because he is unable to satisfy the relevant statement of principles (No 77 of 1998) (the SoP). The applicant has asked the Tribunal to review the decision.

the material before the tribunal

3. The Tribunal was provided with the documents required under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The following documents were also tendered in evidence and taken into consideration for the purposes of this decision:

·Statement of the applicant dated May 2005 (exhibit 2);

·Report of Dr Mulholland dated 28 July 2005 (exhibit 3);

·Report of Writeway Research Service dated 18 September 2005 (exhibit 4);

·Report of Dr Likely dated 16 November 2005 (exhibit 5);

·Report of Dr Mulholland dated 20 January 2006 (exhibit 6).

4.      The hearing commenced in Townsville on 13 October 2005. The applicant gave evidence. The hearing was adjourned at the request of the parties so they could obtain further medical evidence in light of the applicant’s testimony. When the hearing resumed on 14 March 2005, the Tribunal was provided with supplementary reports from Dr Mulholland and Dr Likely.

5.      The applicant was represented by Mr Honchin. The respondent was represented by Mr Stoner at the first hearing, and by Mr Smith at the resumed hearing.

the facts

6.      The applicant joined the navy on 8 January 1964. He was 16 at the time. He was trained as a cook. He was subsequently married.

7.      Mr Lloyd says he was assaulted…