Mayield and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 514

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 514
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2003/796, Q2004/801

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re KEVIN MAYFIELD

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms M J Carstairs, Member
Brigadier Dr G Maynard, Member
Date14 June 2006
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and substitutes the decisions that Mr Mayfield’s alcohol dependence is war caused and he is entitled to be paid intermediate rate of pension with effect from 16 November 2003.

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

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – operational service – intermediate rate of pension – alcohol dependence – severe stressor – Deledio applied – decision set aside.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 19, 22, 23, 24, 120, 120A
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Stoddart and Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 412
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Peacock v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1449
REASONS FOR DECISION

14 June 2006   Ms M J Carstairs, Member

  Brigadier Dr G Maynard, Member
1.        In this application Kevin Mayfield asks this Tribunal to review two decisions, one rejecting his claim that alcohol dependence is related to his war service; the other rejecting his claim to be paid a higher rate of pension.
2.        Mr Mayfield already receives the maximum general rate of pension, so his second claim raises the question of his entitlement to either a special rate of pension under s24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 or the intermediate rate under s23 of the Act. These are two rates of payment available in circumstances where war-caused disability affects a person’s ability to engage in remunerative work, which is what Mr Mayfield claims. The respondent disagrees, saying amongst other things, that Mr Mayfield’s alcohol dependence (a non war-caused disability) affects his ability to undertake work.
BACKGROUND
3.      Mr Mayfield served with the Royal Australian Air Force for twenty years: May 1965 to May 1985. Mr Mayfield, signed up at the age of eighteen, and served with RAAF police investigations unit. At the time, Mr Mayfield was the youngest recruit to the police unit, having joined straight from school. At discharge in 1985, Mr Mayfield held the rank of flight sergeant.
4.      During his twenty-year RAAF career Mr Mayfield had two periods of operational service. The first was when posted at the age of twenty to the airbase at Ubon in Thailand in the airfield defence guard: 1 March 1966 to 1 October 1966. The RAAF were deployed to Ubon airbase, located close to the Laotian and Cambodian borders as part of the Australian SEATO defence commitment to Thailand. The task of the RAAF contingent was to co-operate with the SEATO partners, including the United States Air Force (USAF), and Thai forces in maintaining the territorial integrity of Thailand.
5.      Mr Mayfield’s…

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 Mayield and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Mayield and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 514
Case: [2006] AATA 514
Decision Date: 14 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Mr Mayfield and the Repatriation Commission, with the dispute centred around Mr Mayfield’s eligibility for an intermediate rate of pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Mr Mayfield claimed that his alcohol dependence was caused by operational service, specifically by exposure to severe stress during his service. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether Mr Mayfield’s alcohol dependence was a result of operational service and if it could be classified as a war-caused condition. The legal issues involved interpreting relevant sections of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, particularly sections 19, 22, 23, 24, 120, and 120A, and applying the precedent set by Deledio v Repatriation Commission and other cited cases. The court also had to consider the application of the Deledio principle, which requires the identification of a severe stressor in the context of operational service to establish a causal link between the stressor and the claimed condition.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Repatriation Commission had not adequately applied the Deledio principle in determining Mr Mayfield’s eligibility for an intermediate rate of pension. The court noted that Mr Mayfield had provided sufficient evidence of exposure to severe stressors during his service and that these stressors were likely contributors to his alcohol dependence. The court held that the Commission’s decision did not appropriately consider the causal link between the operational service and Mr Mayfield’s condition. Consequently, the court set aside the Commission’s decision and substituted its own, finding that Mr Mayfield’s alcohol dependence was indeed war-caused, entitling him to the intermediate rate of pension from 16 November 2003.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and substitutes the decisions that Mr Mayfield’s alcohol dependence is war caused and he is entitled to be paid intermediate rate of pension with effect from 16 November 2003.

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.

14 June 2006	Ms M J Carstairs, Member
Brigadier Dr G Maynard, Member