Morris and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 72

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 72
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/652

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re JOHN RAYMOND MORRIS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION

Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member
Date 1 February 2006
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
By way of a Supplementary Decision to the earlier 17 January 2006 Decision of the Tribunal (which is affirmed), the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the Applicant's alcohol abuse (in apparent remission) is defence-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 11 May 2003.

The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent for the assessment of the rate of pension payable.

.....................[Sgd].........................
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – disability pension – defence service with the Royal Australian Air Force – post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – application of Statement of Principles – condition defence-caused
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 69A, 70, 120(4), 120A, 120B, 174 -176, 180A, 196B
Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
REASONS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION

1 February 2006 Mr SC Fisher, Member

Introduction and Background
1. On 17 January 2006, this Tribunal made the following decision (Morris and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 30):
“The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitute the decision that the Applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder is defence-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 9 June 2002.
The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent for the assessment of the rate of pension payable.”

2.      The Applicant subsequently drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the 17 January 2006 decision did not make any decision or order relating to whether or not the alcohol abuse suffered by the Applicant is defence-caused. The parties were agreed that the Tribunal could consider this issue on the basis of the evidence previously adduced without the need for a further hearing. The parties were further agreed that the Tribunal as previously constituted could make a supplementary decision concerning alcohol abuse. This instrument is the Supplementary Decision and Reasons for Decision concerning alcohol abuse. This decision should be read in conjunction with the 17 January 2006 Decision relating to the Applicant's post traumatic stress disorder which the Tribunal decided was defence-caused.
Issue Concerning Alcohol Abuse
3.      The issue concerning alcohol abuse can be framed in this way: is the Applicant's contention correct that the Applicant self-medicated using alcohol following the onset of defence-caused post traumatic stress disorder to the point that this constitutes alcohol abuse? The Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions filed by the Applicant did mention alcohol dependence/abuse (in remission). The Statement of Facts and Contentions filed by the Respondent did not mention alcohol abuse.
Evidence Relating to Alcohol Abuse
4.      The preponderant part of the evidence considered in the 17 January 2006 Decision related to post-traumatic stress disorder. During the previous hearing, the…

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 Morris and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Morris and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 72
Case: [2006] AATA 72
Decision Date: 1 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morris, the appellant, was appealing a decision made by the Repatriation Commission, the respondent, regarding his eligibility for a disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The central issue in dispute was whether Morris's alcohol abuse, which was in apparent remission at the time of the decision, was caused by his service in the defence force. This determination was pivotal as it would affect the assessment of the pension rate he was entitled to receive.

The primary legal issue before the court was to ascertain whether Morris's alcohol abuse could be classified as "defence-caused" within the meaning of the Act. This required a detailed examination of the evidence presented regarding the onset and progression of Morris's alcohol abuse and its link to his service in the defence force. Additionally, the court needed to consider the definition and criteria set out in the Act for determining what constitutes a "defence-caused" condition.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence provided by Morris and found that his alcohol abuse was indeed connected to his service. The court considered medical reports, testimonies, and the overall circumstances of Morris's service and subsequent life events. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the alcohol abuse was defence-caused, thus affirming the Tribunal's earlier decision and substituting the respondent's decision with its own. The matter was then remitted to the Repatriation Commission for reassessment of the pension rate in light of the new findings.

The Tribunal's decision not only affirmed the previous ruling but also clarified the status of Morris's condition as defence-caused from a specific date, 11 May 2003. This decision was pivotal in ensuring Morris received the appropriate benefits under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

By way of a Supplementary Decision to the earlier 17 January 2006 Decision of the Tribunal (which is affirmed), the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the Applicant's alcohol abuse (in apparent remission) is defence-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 11 May 2003.

The Tribunal remits the matter to the Respondent for the assessment of the rate of pension payable.

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.

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN RAYMOND MORRIS