Measures and Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] AATA 909


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 909

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No Q2001/898

VETERAN'S APPEALS DIVISION )
Re DEREK MEASURES

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr I R Way, Member

Date16 September 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.  

....................(Sgd)......................

I R Way
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – post traumatic stress disorder – whether condition resulted from the veteran’s serious default or wilful act, or arose from a serious breach of discipline, or arose from an occurrence that happened whilst the veteran was committing a serious breach of discipline – car accident – death of child – effect of section 9(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 section 9(3)

Ferriday v Repatriation Commission (1996) 69 FCR 521
Re Thompson and Repatriation Commission (AAT No 10177, 12 May 1995)
McPherson v Repatriation Commission (1988) 8 AAR 229
Re Nelson and Repatriation Commission (1988) 15 ALD 49
Re McGrath and Repatriation Commission (1989) 19 ALD 95
Repatriation Commission v Levi (1994) 33 ALD 79

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334

REASONS FOR DECISION

16 September 2003  Mr I R Way, Member          

1.       This is an application by Derek Measures for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 6 October 2000, and affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) on 9 August 2001, which determined that the veteran’s Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is not war caused.

2.       It was agreed by both parties and accepted by the Tribunal that this matter should be heard on the papers without proceeding to a formal hearing. 

3. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and other documentary evidence as set out below. 

§  Report of Dr G Rees dated 21 November 2001

§  Emotional and Behaviour Medical Impairment Worksheet completed by Dr G Rees, dated 6 December 2001

§  Bundle of documents from applicant including statements and 1999 and 2001 tax return details

§  Extract from service medical records

§  Employment questionnaire

§  Report of Dr Knight dated 29 January 2002

§  Report by Writeway Research Service dated 28 February 2002

§  Further report by Writeway dated 28 April 2002

§  Statement of D Johnson dated 2 July 2002

§  Extract from article “Some Facts”

§  Commander’s diary narrative

§  Statement of M Rudd dated 12 June 2002

§  Statement of D Heaziewood, Centrepoint Plaza Medical Centre dated 12 July 2002

§  Statement of M Robbins (undated)

§  Statement of Flight Lieutenant Cooke dated 2 July 2002

§  Submissions of D Robbins dated 31 July 2002

§  Letter and enclosures from Soldier Career Management Agency

§  Statement of S Middleton dated 31 July 2002

§  Statement of D Measures dated 28 August 2002

§  Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 2 December 2002

§  Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions faxed 17 December 2002

§  Report by Writeway Research…

Continue reading Measures and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Measures and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 909
Case
[2003] AATA 909
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

A veteran sought to have his post-traumatic stress disorder recognised as arising from his service. The Repatriation Commission refused, contending that the condition arose from a car accident which occurred while the veteran was committing a serious breach of discipline. The Full Federal Court was asked to determine whether the condition arose from the veteran’s serious default or wilful act, or arose from a serious breach of discipline, or arose from an occurrence that happened while the veteran was committing a serious breach of discipline, under section 9(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Court found that the veteran's actions prior to the car accident constituted a serious breach of discipline, and the condition arose from an occurrence that happened while the veteran was committing a serious breach of discipline. The Full Court held that the Tribunal was correct to refuse the claim, as the condition arose from the veteran's own actions. The decision under review was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms 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.