Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 1114
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N 2006/1301
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re IAN McKAY Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
Dr S H Toh, MemberDate15 December 2008
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal decides that the Applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused as defined in section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 17 July 2003. The matter is remitted to the Respondent for assessment. ..................[sgd]......................
Ms N Isenberg
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – claim for disabilities arising out of operational service – war-caused disease – PTSD – alcohol dependence – applicant suffered a severe stressor – Tribunal accepts diseases are war-caused – decision under review set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 – Sections 9, 13, 120, 120A, 196B
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 65 ALD 609
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 433
Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 74 ALD 366
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 134 FCR 392
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473
Delahunt y Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Statement of Principles concerning Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: No. 5 of 2008
Statement of Principles concerning Post traumatic Stress Disorder: No. 3 of 1999, as amended by No. 54 of 1999
Statement of Principles concerning Alcohol Dependence and Alcohol Abuse: No. 17 of 2008
Statement of Principles concerning Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse: No. 76 of 1998
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 December 2008 Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
Dr S H Toh, MemberBACKGROUND
1. Mr McKay served in the Royal Australian Navy between 27 July 1963 and 25 July 1972. He had a number of short periods of “operational service” as defined in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”). In particular, he served aboard HMAS Vendetta for periods from 20 September to 3 October 1965 and 25 May to 11 June 1966, while it undertook escort duties to HMAS Sydney en route to Vietnam.
2. One of his postings prior to his operational service was to HMAS Voyager (the sister ship to HMAS Vendetta) during the time of its collision with HMAS Melbourne.
3. Mr McKay contends that his claimed condition of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) either arose or was materially contributed to by his suffering a severe stressor while aboard HMAS Vendetta. Alternatively, he suffered PTSD as a result of his HMAS Voyager experience, which was aggravated by a severe stressor while aboard HMAS…
Continue reading McKay and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McKay and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 1114
- Case
- [2008] AATA 1114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the law in determining that the applicant's disabilities were not war-caused. Specifically, the court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and the applicable statements of principles concerning PTSD and alcohol dependence. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and its application of the relevant legal criteria. The Repatriation Commission contended that the Tribunal's decision was correct and should be upheld.
In reviewing the decision, the court found that the Tribunal had not properly applied the relevant legal criteria in assessing whether the applicant's disabilities were war-caused. The court noted that the Tribunal had not adequately considered the evidence of the applicant's severe stressor during service and had not properly applied the criteria in the Statements of Principles. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was therefore flawed and set it aside. In its place, the court found that the applicant's PTSD and alcohol dependence were indeed war-caused, as defined by section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, with effect from 17 July 2003.
The court remitted the matter back to the Repatriation Commission for reassessment in light of the court's findings. The decision under review was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to decide that the applicant’s posttraumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence were war-caused. The matter was to be remitted to the Repatriation Commission for assessment of the applicant’s entitlements.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal decides that the Applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused as defined in section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 17 July 2003. The matter is remitted to the Respondent for assessment.
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.