Newlands and Repatriation Commission - [2005] AATA 413

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 413
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
)N2004/435

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re ANTHONY NEWLANDS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Dr I Alexander, Member
Date9 May 2005
PlaceSydney

.............................................
Ms G Ettinger,
Presiding Member

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal varies the decisions of the Repatriation Commission dated 8 June 2001 and 21 August 2001 as affirmed by the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board made on 25 February 2004, which refused the claims of Mr Anthony Newlands for depression, anxiety, adjustment disorder, alcohol dependence and drug dependence.
In substitution therefor, the Tribunal finds that Mr Newlands’ conditions of alcohol abuse and drug abuse, are war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Act.
The Applicant did not pursue his claims in relation to depression, anxiety and adjustment disorder, and accordingly, the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Repatriation Commission as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board in that regard, and finds that those conditions are not war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Act.
The matter is remitted to the Repatriation Commission for assessment of Mr Newlands' entitlement to disability pension.
.............................................
Ms G Ettinger,
Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlement – Disability Pension - Operational Service – Reasonable hypothesis - Statements of Principles – Diagnosis – Eligible Service – Decision Varied
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120, 120A, 120(1), 120(3), 120(4)
Statement of Principles concerning Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse - Instrument No. 77 of 1998
Statement of Principles concerning Drug Dependence or Drug Abuse – Instrument No.79 of 1998
AUTHORITIES
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 52 ALD 1
Budworth v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 317
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 412
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 160
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
REASONS FOR DECISION

9 May 2005
  Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

  Dr I Alexander, Member

BACKGROUND
1.      The application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was that of Mr Anthony Newlands, (“the Applicant”), for review of decisions of the Repatriation Commission dated 8 June 2001 and 21 August 2001, as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) made on 25 February 2004, refusing claims for depression, anxiety, adjustment disorder, alcohol dependence and drug dependence.
2.      The Applicant was born on 25 February 1953. He served in the Royal Australian Navy (“the Navy”) from 8 January 1969, aged 15 years, to his discharge on 3 June 1976. Mr Newlands trained in gunnery and spent his time in the Navy in that field.
3.      He served on operational service on HMAS Vampire from 21 – 26 November 1972, and also has eligible service. There was some inconsistency in the recording of the exact dates for Mr Newlands’ eligible service, the Tribunal noting that different dates were recorded at T2 and Exhibit…

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 Newlands and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Newlands and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 413
Case: [2005] AATA 413
Decision Date: 9 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Newlands and the Repatriation Commission, were before the Federal Court in a matter concerning a veteran's entitlement to a disability pension. The primary issue was whether the veteran, Newlands, was eligible for the pension based on his service and diagnosis. The court had to determine if the Commission's decision to deny the pension was legally sound, considering the evidence and the applicable legislative framework. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the veteran's service qualified as eligible service under the relevant legislation and if the diagnosis met the criteria set out in the statements of principles.

The court considered whether the evidence presented by Newlands supported a reasonable hypothesis that his disability arose from his service. The veteran argued that his service constituted eligible service and that his diagnosis aligned with the conditions outlined in the statements of principles. The court assessed the sufficiency of the evidence and the Commission's application of the legislative criteria. It examined the logical connection between the veteran's service and the onset of his disability, as well as the accuracy and completeness of the diagnosis provided.

The court found that the veteran's service did qualify as eligible service and that his diagnosis was consistent with the conditions outlined in the statements of principles. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support a reasonable hypothesis that the veteran's disability arose from his service. Consequently, the court determined that the Commission's decision to deny the pension was incorrect and varied the decision to grant the pension. The court emphasised the importance of the logical connection between service and disability, as well as the need for accurate and comprehensive diagnosis in such cases. The decision highlights the necessity for the Commission to carefully consider the evidence and the legislative criteria when determining eligibility for veterans' entitlements.

Orders