Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 30
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/652
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re JOHN RAYMOND MORRIS Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member Date17 January 2006
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes 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.
...................[Sgd]...........................
SC Fisher
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 ss 69A, 70, 120(4), 120A, 120B, 174 -176, 180A, 196B
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy (1998) FCA 809
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248; (2003) 74 ALD 21
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472 Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Smith v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 537
Re Buckham and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 174
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 365
Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Williamson and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1185
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321; (2001) 65 ALD 609
Hillier v Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Palmer and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 2
Beurskeus and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 601
Re Hackett and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1347
Re Ballantyne and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1186
Re Martin and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1228
Repatriation Commission and Gosewinkel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Jordan (1998) 49 ALD 504
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334; 197 ALR 283
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309REASONS FOR DECISION
17 January 2006 Mr SC Fisher, Member Introduction And Background
1. Mr John Raymond Morris (the Applicant) was born on 10 April 1949. The applicant served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 11 January 1966 to 14 March 1986. The only eligible service of the applicant was defence service from 7 December 1972 to 14 March 1986. The applicant was posted to RAAF Base, Butterworth, Malaysia as a Radio Technician (Ground) from June 1975 to December 1977. The Applicant claims that two events took place during his defence service that caused him to suffer post traumatic stress disorder for which the Repatriation Commission (the Respondent) is liable to pay him compensation.
Jurisdiction
2. This appeal is governed by…
Continue reading Morris and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Morris and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 30
- Case
- [2006] AATA 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal should affirm or overturn the Repatriation Commission's decision that the applicant's PTSD was not caused by his service. The applicant argued that his PTSD was indeed defence-caused, and the Tribunal needed to consider the relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, particularly sections 69A, 70, 120(4), 120A, 120B, 174-176, 180A, and 196B. The Tribunal also needed to assess the applicable case law, including decisions such as Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy, Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority, and others.
The Tribunal found that the Repatriation Commission had erred in its assessment of the applicant's condition. The evidence provided by the applicant was compelling, and the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's PTSD was indeed defence-caused. The Tribunal highlighted that the Repatriation Commission had not properly considered the medical evidence and had failed to apply the relevant statutory provisions correctly. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted its own decision that the applicant's PTSD was defence-caused as of 9 June 2002. The matter was remitted to the Repatriation Commission to reassess the rate of pension payable to the applicant.
The final orders were that the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Repatriation Commission and substituted its own decision that the applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder was defence-caused within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 9 June 2002. The Tribunal also directed the Repatriation Commission to re-evaluate the rate of pension payable to the applicant.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes 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.
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.