Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 163
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2007/02
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION )
Re WILLIAM ROY MANN Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal M J Carstairs, Senior Member Date 27 February 2008
Place Brisbane
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the applicant’s conditions of generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse and gout are war–caused with effect from 15 September 2003, and remits to the respondent the assessment of pension payable as a result of this decision.
.................[Sgd].............................
SENIOR MEMBER
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse/dependence, gout – operational service in Far Eastern Strategic Reserve – application of statement of principles – severe stressor – category 1A stressor – decision set aside.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 9, 120, 120A
Mann and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 256
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331Roncevich and Repatriation Commission (2006) 91 ALD 662
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 197 ALR 283
Repatriation Commission v Constable [2006] FCAFC 102
Fenner v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCA 406
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Brady [2007] FCA 1087
Collins v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2007] FCAFC 111REASONS FOR DECISION
27 February 2008
MJ Carstairs, Senior Member 1. In 2003, William Mann claimed disability pension for three medical conditions – anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse[1] and gout. He claims that these conditions are related to his operational service in particular that part of it in which he served with the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve (FESR) during the time of the Malayan Emergency.
[1] The claim refers to abuse or dependence, but the medical evidence suggests abuse.
2. In a previous decision,[2] I affirmed the respondent’s decision rejecting Mr Mann’s claims. Mr Mann appealed that decision to the Federal Magistrates Court. The appeal was allowed by consent, and the Court ordered that the decision be set aside and the matter be remitted for determination according to law. The legal error identified was in requiring that Mr Mann had experienced intense fear, helplessness, or horror as a result of a stressful incident, whereas the factor in the Statement of Principles for alcohol dependence required no more than that the event relied upon might evoke intense fear, helplessness, or horror. The matter was reheard, with Mr Mann giving his oral evidence again and oral evidence was received from Dr B Anderson, Mr Mann’s treating psychiatrist, Dr F Varghese, consultant psychiatrist, and Mr P Mulcare, naval historian.
[2] Mann and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 256.
THE ISSUES
3. Given the contentions by the parties, and the statutory framework provided for in the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986, the issues I must consider are:
· what are the medical conditions?
· what is the legal framework: that is, whether the evidence raises hypotheses connecting the medical conditions…
Continue reading Mann and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mann and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 163
- Case
- [2008] AATA 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's conditions met the criteria for being considered war-caused under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's service constituted a severe stressor, which would classify the conditions as category 1A stressor. This required a careful assessment of the evidence presented regarding the nature of the applicant's service and the onset and progression of his medical conditions.
The Tribunal found that the Repatriation Commission had not correctly applied the statement of principles relevant to the applicant's service and conditions. The Tribunal held that the applicant's service did indeed constitute a severe stressor, and thus his conditions were appropriately classified as category 1A stressors. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted it with a decision that the applicant's conditions were war-caused, effective from 15 September 2003. The case was then remitted to the Repatriation Commission to reassess the pension payable in light of this new decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the applicant’s conditions of generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse and gout are war–caused with effect from 15 September 2003, and remits to the respondent the assessment of pension payable as a result of this decision.
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.