Murray and Repatriation Commission

[2006] AATA 3

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 3

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  Q2004/242

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		ANTHONY MURRAY

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member B J McCabe

Date4 January 2006

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

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

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – application for special rate pension – applicant not prevented from undertaking remunerative work by reason of his war-caused disabilities alone – decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 24

Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 9 ALN 223

Forbes v Repatriation Commission (1990) 20 ALD 255

Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1; (1997) 26 AAR 93

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 January 2006	Senior Member B J McCabe
introduction

1. Mr Anthony Murray applied for an increase his disability pension payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA). The respondent Commission declined to increase the pension beyond 100% of the general rate. The Veterans’ Review Board affirmed the decision. The applicant has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the decision.

2. The applicant can only succeed in his claim for a pension paid at the special rate if he satisfies the requirements of s 24 of the VEA. The respondent concedes the applicant is able to satisfy ss 24(1)(a) and (b). The issue in this case is whether he can satisfy s 24(1)(c) which requires that he be prevented from undertaking remunerative work by reason of his war-caused disabilities alone.

the material before the tribunal

3. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The following documents were also tendered in evidence:

·     Statement of the applicant dated 13 January 2005  (exhibit 2);

·     Statement of Mr John Andrew Chate dated 1 October 2004 (exhibit 3);

·     Report of Dr Michael Likely dated 25 January 2005 and commissioning letter dated 14 January 2005 (exhibit 4);

·     Correspondence from Dr Peter Doyle dated 5 October 2000 (exhibit 5);

·     Photo of the applicant and helicopter (external view) (exhibit 6);

·     Photo of the applicant and helicopter (internal view) (exhibit 7);

·     Report of Dr Peter Mulholland dated 6 July 2005 and commissioning letter dated 4 July 2005 (exhibit 8);

·     Report of Dr Phillip Vecchio dated 12 December 2004 and commissioning letter dated 12 October 2004 (exhibit 9);

·     Report of Dr Peter Boys dated 1 July 2004 (exhibit 10);

·     Minute of Dr Peter Grant dated 12 October 2004 (exhibit 11);

·     Letter of Mr Alex Wright dated 8 October 2004 (exhibit 12);

·     Applicant’s personal file from the Queensland Government Department of Emergency Services; and

·     Clinical notes of Dr Kevin Arlett lodged in the Tribunal 11 October 2004 (exhibit 14).

4.       The applicant gave evidence at the hearing. Dr Arlett, the applicant’s general practitioner, also gave evidence.

5.       Mr Murray was represented by Mr Honchin of counsel. The Commission was represented by Mr Stoner, counsel employed…