Menhennett and Repatriation Commission - [2001] AATA 358

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 358

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/842

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re WILLIAM JOHN MENHENNETT
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Dr P D Lynch, Member

Date11 April 2001
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No N2000/842
  )
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION                )

Re: WILLIAM JOHN MENHENNETT
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen
Dr P Lynch, Member

Date 11 April 2001

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision, namely THAT:

1. The Applicant, WILLIAM JOHN MENHENNETT, is entitled to payment of pension for the defence-caused disease of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as and from 26 November 1998; and
2. The Applicant is entitled to pension for incapacity occasioned by all war-caused and defence-caused diseases at the intermediate rate as prescribed by section 23 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as and from 26 November 1998.
(Sgd) M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Whether Applicant's condition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was attributable to service. Rate of pension to be paid.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 - s23, s120B, subss120(1) and (3)

Repatriation Commission v Smith 15 FCR 327
Cavell v Repatriation Commission 9 AAR 534
Forbes v Repatriation Commission 58 ALD 394

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen

Signed: Kwai-Ling Wong
..................................................................................……………………………….
Associate

Date of Hearing  11 April 2001
Date of Decision  11 April 2001
Counsel for Applicant                 Mr D G Price
Solicitor for Applicant                  R L Whyburn & Associates
Advocate for Respondent          Mr S Modder,
  Department of Veterans' Affairs

DRAFT DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N2000/842
By Mr M.D. Allen, Senior Member; and
Dr P D Lynch, Member
WILLIAM JOHN MENHENNETT and
THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION
SYDNEY, WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2001
MR ALLEN: In this matter, pursuant to an application lodged with the Tribunal on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Menhennett and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Menhennett and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 358
Case: [2001] AATA 358
Decision Date: 11 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Menhennett versus the Repatriation Commission, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicant's condition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was attributable to his service, and if so, the appropriate rate of pension to be paid. The applicant, a veteran, claimed that his PTSD was a direct consequence of his service in the Australian Defence Force. The Repatriation Commission contested the claim, arguing that the applicant's PTSD was not service-attributable. The case hinged on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the application of precedents such as Repatriation Commission v Smith and Cavell v Repatriation Commission.

The primary legal issues revolved around the definition and scope of service-attributable conditions under the Act, and the methodology for determining the appropriate rate of pension. The court had to assess whether the applicant's PTSD met the statutory criteria for a service-attributable condition and, if so, whether it warranted a specific pension rate under the Act. The court also considered the applicability of Forbes v Repatriation Commission in the context of the applicant's claim. The decision required a careful examination of the evidence presented regarding the onset and progression of the applicant's PTSD, and the connection to his military service.

The court concluded that the applicant's PTSD was indeed attributable to his service, finding that the evidence supported a causal link between his military experiences and the development of his condition. In determining the appropriate rate of pension, the court applied the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, taking into account the severity and impact of the applicant's PTSD. The court also referenced the precedents cited, aligning its decision with the established legal framework for assessing service-attributable conditions and pension rates. The Repatriation Commission's appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was granted the pension rate commensurate with his service-attributable PTSD.

The final orders of the court mandated that the Repatriation Commission provide the applicant with the pension rate appropriate for his service-attributable PTSD, in accordance with the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The court's decision underscored the importance of a thorough and evidence-based approach in determining the eligibility and rate of pensions for veterans with service-related conditions.

Orders