Mansfield and Repatriation Commission - [2000] AATA 435

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 435

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL)

Nº N98/1392

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION)
Re: RICHARD CHARLES MANSFIELD

Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal: Mrs H.E. Hallowes, Senior Member

Date:2 June 2000
Place:Sydney

Decision The decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 24 June 1997, which was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 10 June 1998, is varied to provide that Mr Mansfield's hypertension is defence-caused. The matter is remitted to the Repatriation Commission to determine the rate of pension payable.

(sgd) H.E. Hallowes
Senior Member
VETERANS' AFFAIRS — entitlement — generalised anxiety disorder, hypertension — obesity — whether war-caused or defence-caused — four days service in Vietnamese waters —twenty years defence service – weight increase – whether psycho active substance abuse
WORDS AND PHRASES — "clinical onset"
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss.23(1)(a), 37
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss.21A, 120, 120A, 120B, 196B
Statements of Principles concerning Generalised Anxiety Disorder

Instruments Nos 48 and 49 of 1994 as amended by Instruments Nos 275 and 276 of 1995
Instruments Nos 1 and 3 of 2000

Statements of Principles concerning Hypertension

Instruments Nos 83 and 84 of 1995
Instruments Nos 64 and 65 of 1998
Instruments Nos 25 and 26 of 1999

Statement of Principles concerning Proactive Substance Abuse or Dependence

Instrument No 77 of 1998

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532 (28 April 2000)
Re McLeod-Dryden and Repatriation Commission (1998) 53 ALD 42
Re Witten and Repatriation Commission (1998) 54 ALD 605

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 June 2000 Mrs H.E. Hallowes, Senior Member
Review

Mr Mansfield seeks review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission made on 24 June 1997, which was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board ("VRB") on 10 June 1998, that his "generalised anxiety disorder and hypertension" were not war-caused or defence-caused under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act"). The Repatriation Commission found that Mr Mansfield's bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus was defence-caused, the decision taking effect from 10 January 1997, although no rate of pension was payable to Mr Mansfield after assessment under the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions ("the Guide") pursuant to section 21A of the Act. The parties did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal with respect to Mr Mansfield's entitlement to be paid pension under the Act and asked the Tribunal to remit that matter to the respondent should the Tribunal make a decision more favourable to Mr Mansfield.
Documents
The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the documents") ("the AAT Act), together with additional material lodged by both parties at the hearing. Mr Mansfield was represented by Mr C. Colbourne and the Repatriation Commission by Miss R. Henderson both of counsel. After the hearing commenced, one of the Tribunal members ceased to be available for the purposes of the proceeding and, with the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal was…

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 Mansfield and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Mansfield and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 435
Case: [2000] AATA 435
Decision Date: 2 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Richard Charles Mansfield appealed a decision of the Repatriation Commission, which was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board, that his generalised anxiety disorder and hypertension were not war-caused or defence-caused under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal, consisting of Mrs H.E. Hallowes, Senior Member, was tasked with reviewing the decision and determining whether the applicant's conditions were war-caused or defence-caused. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the applicant's generalised anxiety disorder and hypertension were war-caused or defence-caused under the applicable Statements of Principles (SoPs). The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety disorder, but it was not connected to his war or defence service as per the SoPs. However, the Tribunal did find that the applicant's hypertension was defence-caused, as it was connected to the circumstances of his service, specifically his alcohol abuse and obesity. The decision of the Repatriation Commission was varied to provide that Mr Mansfield's hypertension is defence-caused, and the matter was remitted to the Repatriation Commission to determine the rate of pension payable.

Orders