Meaker and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 1146


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1146

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2005/146

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

)

Re RAY MEAKER

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member

Date18 November 2005 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal decides to affirm the decision under review. 

........[Sgd].........

SC Fisher
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veteran’s Entitlement Act – operational service in Vietnam – Deledio applied – war caused injury - anxiety disorder  severe psychosocial stressor – decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 119, 120, 120A, 196B

Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy [1998] 809 FCA
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 98
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 38 AAR 176
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332
Morgan v Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 458
Repatriation Commission v Turner [2004] FCA 1184
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Sparks v Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 319
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Repatriation Commission v Crane [2004] FCAFC 86
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 365
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Repatriation Commission v Gosewickel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1832
Fenner v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 27
Hill v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCAFC 23
Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCAFC 83
Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Parnell-Schoneveld v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 153
Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892
Re Ahrenfeld and Repatriation Commission (1992) 28 ALD 921
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Haughey anc Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 35
Sparks and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 319
Williamson and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1185

Stonehouse and Repatriaion Commission [2004] AATA 707

REASONS FOR DECISION

18  November 2005 Mr S C Fisher, Member      

Introduction and background

1.      Mr Raymond Maxwell Meaker (the Applicant) served in the Royal Australian Navy from 7 July 1967 to 14 July 1977, including 4 periods of operational service in South Vietnam comprising the following periods:

  • 8 – 30 May 1969;
  • 17 November -- 5 December 1969;
  • 16 February – 5 March 1970; and
  • 21 October -- 12 November 1970.

2.      The Applicant lodged a claim for "anxiety disorder" on 9 September 2004 with the Repatriation Commission (the Respondent).  The Respondent made a determination on 8 October 2004…

Continue reading Meaker and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Meaker and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1146
Case
[2005] AATA 1146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Meaker sought a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission concerning his entitlement to compensation for a psychiatric injury sustained during his service in Vietnam. The primary legal question was whether Meaker's anxiety disorder, resulting from severe psychosocial stressors during his service, qualified as an injury caused by operational service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This act mandates that compensation be awarded for injuries directly attributable to military service, and the definition of "injury" includes psychiatric disorders caused by war-related stressors. The court had to determine if Meaker's condition met the statutory criteria and if the Commission's findings were legally sound.

The court examined the statutory framework, particularly sections 119, 120, 120A, and 196B, which outline the conditions for awarding compensation. It considered previous cases like Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority, which established principles of statutory interpretation, and various veterans' cases that dealt with similar psychiatric claims. The court assessed the evidence provided by Meaker, including expert psychiatric opinions and service records, to determine if the anxiety disorder was a result of the operational service in Vietnam. The court also looked at the Commission's application of Deledio principles, which require a direct causal link between the service and the injury.

After reviewing the evidence and legal precedents, the court concluded that Meaker's anxiety disorder was indeed caused by operational service in Vietnam. The Commission's decision was found to be legally correct, as it properly applied the statutory criteria and relevant case law. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Meaker's claim for compensation was valid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

The Federal Circuit Court ordered that the decision of the Repatriation Commission be affirmed, with Meaker entitled to compensation for his service-related anxiety disorder.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal decides to affirm 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.