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, MemberDate9 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, MemberAPPLICATION
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
- AGLC
- Meehan and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 429
- Case
- [2003] AATA 429
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.