Meehan and Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] AATA 429


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 429

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No N2002/1168

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re SYDNEY JAMES MEEHAN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date9 May 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision The tribunal affirms the decision under review as varied by the Veterans’ Review Board.

[SGD] M. J. Sassella
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Disability Pension - generalised anxiety disorder - whether disease war-caused - whether disease had clinical onset within two years of experiencing a stressful event - meaning of "clinical onset" - meaning of "stressful event" - material to be considered in forming opinion whether reasonable hypothesis exists

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 20(1), 120(1), (3), 120A(3), 196B

Statement of Principles 1/2000 concerning anxiety disorder

Statement of Principles 48/94 as amended by 275/95 concerning generalised anxiety disorder

Bey, Repatriation Commission v (1997) 79 FCR 365

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564

Cornelius v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 750

Deledio, Repatriation Commission v (1998) 49 ALD 193

East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 12 ALD 389

Gorton, Repatriation Commission v (2001) 33 AAR 370

Gosewinckel, Repatriation Commission v (1999) 59 ALD 690

Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398

Meehan and Repatriation Commission, Re [2000] AATA 987

Meehan and Repatriation Commission, Re [2002] AATA 273

Meehan v Repatriation Commission (2001) 64 ALD 366

Meehan v Repatriation Commission (2002) 35 AAR 353

O’Neil v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 290

Owens, Repatriation Commission v (1996) 70 ALJR 904

Williams, Repatriation Commission v [2001] FCA 1195.

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 May 2003 Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member            

APPLICATION

1.       This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the tribunal”) by James Sydney Meehan (“the applicant”), born 24 February 1952 (AB1/13), for review of a decision by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”).  That decision was made on 3 June 1996 (AB1/T2) and involved, among other things, rejection of a claim by the applicant for Disability Pension in respect of the disease of post traumatic stress disorder he was said to be suffering.  A Disability Pension is paid pursuant to Part II of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”)[1].  That part of the decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) on 16 March 1999 (AB1/T31).

[1] Meehan is in receipt of a Disability Pension paid at 20% of the general rate in respect of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus (TD1/1A).

3.       This application has reached the current tribunal by a circuitous route.  The tribunal initially affirmed the decision under review on 14 November 2000 in Re Meehan and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 987. The applicant appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

·     On 25 May 2001 Wilcox J in that court handed down a decision in Meehan v Repatriation Commission (2001)…

Continue reading Meehan and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Meehan and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 429
Case
[2003] AATA 429
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by Meehan against a decision of the Veterans' Review Board, which in turn was a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission regarding Meehan's entitlement to a disability pension. Meehan sought compensation for a generalised anxiety disorder that he claimed was caused by his service in the armed forces. The dispute centred on whether the disorder was a war-caused disease and whether it had its clinical onset within two years of a stressful event during his service.

The central legal issues were the interpretation of the terms "clinical onset" and "stressful event" in the context of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and the process for determining whether a reasonable hypothesis exists that a disease was caused by service. The court also considered the extent to which the tribunal should review the evidence and the decision-making process of the Repatriation Commission.

The court found that the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant principles and had given proper consideration to the evidence presented. The term "clinical onset" was held to mean the point at which the disease first became manifest in a way that would be recognisable to a medical practitioner. The court also clarified that a "stressful event" refers to an event that is likely to have a significant impact on a person's mental health. The tribunal was required to consider all relevant material in forming its opinion on whether a reasonable hypothesis existed that the disease was caused by service. The decision of the Veterans' Review Board was affirmed, with some variations.

The tribunal's decision was affirmed with the specified variations, and the matter was concluded with no further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The tribunal affirms the decision under review as varied by the Veterans’ Review Board.

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.