Martin and Repatriation Commission

[2003] AATA 1228

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1228

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No.   N2001/1239

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		RAY LESLIE MARTIN

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen;
Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date5 December 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(Sgd) M D Allen
  ..............................................

Presiding Member

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No.   N2002/929

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		RAY LESLIE MARTIN

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen;
Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date5 December 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(Sgd) M D Allen
  ..............................................

Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

VETARANS' ENTITLEMENTS - whether current illness Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with alcohol dependence or Alcohol Dependence alone - whether diagnostic criteria for causation met - opinions of psychiatrists dependent upon facts found by Tribunal - whether an assault amounts to a severe stressor.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - diagnosis of illness suffered - factual basis for determining diagnosis - what amounts to a severe traumatic event for causation or contribution to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 - s 68, s70, ss120(4), s120B

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - s14

Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398

Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750

Brew v Repatriation Commission (1999) 94 FCR 80

Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

Australian Postal Corporation v Kember [2003] FCA 800

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 5 FCR 327

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 December 2003 Senior Member M D Allen
Dr J Campbell, Member        

1.      This matter concerned two applications by the Applicant which were heard together. The first in time matter N2001/1239 was an application to review a decision by the Repatriation Commission dated 1 August 2001 and affirmed by a Veterans' Review Board, regarding the Applicant's claim to have conditions described as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Panic disorder with agoraphobia, Alcohol dependence and social phobia" attributed to his defence service pursuant to section 70 Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (“the VEA”).

2.      The second matter N2002/929 sought review of a "reviewable decision" pursuant to section 62 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the SRC Act”). That decision affirmed the prior determination that rejected the Applicant's claim for compensation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”).

3. So far as relates to the claim against the Repatriation Commission as the Applicant did not have operational service, the standard of proof is that mandated by subsection 120(4) VEA, namely that of to the Tribunal's "reasonable satisfaction". As was pointed out in Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327 the term "reasonable satisfaction" equates to the civil standard of proof.

4. In addition, as the…