Mann and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 256

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 256
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2005/377

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re WILLIAM ROY MANN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms M J Carstairs, Member
Date17 March 2006
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

. ........[Sgd]........
M J Carstairs
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS –– anxiety disorder – alcohol abuse/dependence – gout – operational service in Far Eastern Strategic Reserve and Vietnam - application of statement of principles – no severe psychosocial stressor – decision affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act ss 9, 120, 120A
Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCAFC 83
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 36 AAR 484
REASONS FOR DECISION

17 March 2006 Ms M J Carstairs, Member

1.      William Mann has claimed pension for three medical conditions – anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence and gout – he claims relate to his service with the Royal Australian Navy. Mr Mann served with the navy for 20 years from 1960 to 1980. He had several periods of overseas or operational service; these are eligible war service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), and include his service on voyages with the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve (FESR) and to Vietnam. Outside of his operational service, Mr Mann does not rely on the rest of his defence service in relation to these claims.
2.      Mr Mann says that he has suffered from anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence from about the mid-1960’s and from gout since about 1970.   He relates these conditions to his experience of a stressful incident which took place during his service with the FESR in late 1964 and says that he suffered anxiety symptoms from about 1965 and either alcohol dependence or abuse from about that time.
3.      The respondent agrees that Mr Mann suffers from alcohol dependence and from anxiety disorder but contends the incident on which he relies was not sufficiently stressful to cause anxiety disorder or alcohol dependence, and that the clinical onset of anxiety disorder was not as early as Mr Mann claims. The date of clinical onset of Mr Mann’s conditions has importance because, as will be seen below, clinical onset must occur within specified time limits, and must be related to service, for a person to satisfy the Statements of Principle (SoPs) for anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse/dependence.
4.      In considering Mr Mann’s overall claim, I put to one side the claim for gout, as the parties agreed that the acceptance of gout would follow automatically if Mr Mann’s claim for alcohol dependence is successful.
ISSUES
5.      A veteran is entitled to be paid a pension if his conditions are war-caused within the meaning of s9 of the Act. Whether a condition is war-caused is governed by s120 of the Act, which prescribes the standard of proof where a person has operational…

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 Mann and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Mann and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 256
Case: [2006] AATA 256
Decision Date: 17 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mann, sought a review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission concerning his entitlement to certain veterans' benefits. The Commission had decided that the applicant's anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse, and gout were not service-connected and therefore not eligible for benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central legal issue was whether the applicant's conditions were incurred or aggravated by operational service in the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve and Vietnam, which would entitle him to benefits under the relevant statement of principles. Specifically, the AAT had to determine whether the applicant's anxiety disorder was caused by a severe psychosocial stressor, as defined by the principles.

The AAT reviewed the evidence and concluded that the applicant's conditions were not connected to his service. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had served in the specified areas, there was no evidence of a severe psychosocial stressor that could be linked to his anxiety disorder. The Tribunal relied on previous cases, including Hardman v Repatriation Commission, Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, Deledio v Repatriation Commission, White v Repatriation Commission, and Lees v Repatriation Commission, to support its decision. It determined that the applicant's conditions were more likely due to his personal circumstances and lifestyle choices, such as alcohol abuse, rather than his military service. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the Commission's decision.

In light of the above, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, dismissing the applicant's appeal. The applicant's claims for benefits related to his anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse, and gout were not upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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.