Milenz and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 1038


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1038

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL          )

)          No V2004/770

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re YURGEN MILENZ

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date20 October 2005

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution IT IS DECIDED the applicant suffers from alcohol abuse and dependence, depressive disorder and irritable bowel syndrome which are war-caused.  The application is remitted to the respondent to calculate pension entitlement.

..............................................

Senior Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – applicant a member of crew of HMAS Yarra – called to action stations – unidentified vessel – not an exercise – applicant confined below sealed hatches – applicant experienced a severe stressor and a psychosocial stressor – pre-existing alcohol abuse and depression – worsened by service – decision set aside

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (C’th)

Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473

Guy v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 562

Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309

Hill v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCAFC 23

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334

White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 October 2005 Mr John Handley, Senior Member  

1.      The applicant applied to review a decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) on 20 May 2004.  The VRB was then reviewing a decision previously made by the respondent on 13 February 2003 to refuse his claim for acceptance of the conditions of alcohol dependence or abuse, irritable bowel syndrome and generalised anxiety disorder.  The VRB decided to amend the diagnosis with respect to “generalised anxiety disorder” and substituted the diagnosis of “anxiety disorder”.  The remainder of the decision was affirmed. 

2.      Mr Milenz is 57 years of age having been born on 29 July 1948.  He currently receives pension at 90 per cent of the general rate for the accepted conditions of osteoarthrosis of right knee, cervical spondylosis, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinea.  A number of other illnesses or injuries have been rejected as war-caused.  However, this review only concerns the conditions refused by the respondent.

3.      The hearing of the application commenced in Wangaratta on 5 April 2005 and resumed in Melbourne on 2 June 2005.  Mr Larkin appeared on behalf of Mr Milenz and Mr Douglass appeared on behalf of the respondent.  A number of documents were received into evidence and will be referred to in these reasons.

4.      Mr Larkin indicated at the commencement of the hearing that there was no intention to call any witnesses other than the applicant, and reliance would be made on reports that had been filed.  Mr Douglass indicated that he would call evidence from Drs Strauss and Percival, who are both medico-legal psychiatrists, and from Commodore Mulcare.

yurgen horst milenz

5.      Mr Milenz adopted a statement that he completed on 30 June 2004 and which was received into evidence as Exhibit A.  That statement is reproduced as follows:

I served in the RAN from 12…

Continue reading Milenz and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Milenz and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1038
Case
[2005] AATA 1038
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Milenz v Repatriation Commission was a case heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, Mr. Milenz, sought to have his pension entitlement re-assessed due to additional health conditions he claimed were war-related. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's additional conditions, namely alcohol abuse and dependence, depressive disorder, and irritable bowel syndrome, were indeed caused by his war service and thus warranted a re-evaluation of his pension entitlement.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's claims were substantiated by sufficient evidence and whether the Repatriation Commission had properly considered the evidence provided. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the medical opinions presented by both parties.

The court found that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that his conditions were war-caused. The evidence provided, including the applicant's service records and medical reports, supported the claim that his health issues were linked to his time in the military. The court also noted that the Commission had not adequately considered the evidence provided by the applicant, particularly in relation to the onset and progression of his conditions. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the Commission and decided that the applicant's conditions were indeed war-caused, ordering that the application be remitted to the Commission to recalculate the pension entitlement accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution IT IS DECIDED the applicant suffers from alcohol abuse and dependence, depressive disorder and irritable bowel syndrome which are war-caused. The application is remitted to the respondent to calculate pension entitlement.

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.