Newton and Repatriation Commission

Case [2009] AATA 485

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 485

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/3135

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re CHRISTOPHER NEWTON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Member

Date30 June 2009

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – operational service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions – no factual basis for diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder – posttraumatic stress disorder not war-caused – diagnosis of alcohol abuse  – clinical onset of alcohol abuse – a reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised for alcohol abuse – satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that alcohol abuse not attributable to eligible war-service – alcohol abuse not war-caused – decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 69, 120, 120A

Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 60 ALD 401
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 65 ALD 609
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 38 AAR 176
Drew v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 537

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Re Mann and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 163
Re Sanderson and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 891

Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750

REASONS FOR DECISION

30 June 2009 Mr R G Kenny, Member     

BACKGROUND

1. Christopher Newton served with the Royal Australian Navy (“the RAN”) from 26 November 1966 until 30 October 1973. On 29 March 2005, he lodged with the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”), in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”), a claim for a disability pension for “anxiety/depressive disorders”, “gastro reflux”, “alcohol dependence/abuse”, “impotence” and “lower back” which he contended were related to his RAN service. 

2.      On 2 November 2005, the respondent determined that the appropriate medical diagnoses for the claimed conditions were posttraumatic stress disorder, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, alcohol abuse, erectile dysfunction and lumbar spondylosis.  It also determined that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, erectile dysfunction and lumbar spondylosis were related to Mr Newton’s service but that posttraumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse were not so related.  On 14 March 2008, the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed the decision in relation to posttraumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse.

ISSUES AND SERVICE 

3. Mr Newton completed defence service in accordance with s 69 of the Act from 7 December 1972 until his discharge. No contentions were raised in relation to that period and I am satisfied that neither of the claimed conditions are related to defence service. Mr Newton also completed periods of eligible war service in the form of operational service as provided for in s 7 and s 6C of the Act, respectively, from 20 May 1968 until 7 June 1968, from 15 September 1969 until 11 April 1970 and from 1 November…

Continue reading Newton and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Newton and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 485
Case
[2009] AATA 485
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Newton applied for a review of decisions by the Repatriation Commission that he was not entitled to a war-caused disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The primary issue was whether Newton’s psychiatric conditions, namely posttraumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse, were war-caused. Newton contended that his service with the Royal Australian Navy caused his conditions, while the Commission argued that they were not attributable to his service. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had to determine the factual basis of the diagnoses and whether they had a relevant relationship to Newton’s service.

The Tribunal assessed the evidence regarding Newton's service and the diagnoses of his conditions. It found that there was no factual basis for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder as it was not established that Newton had experienced a traumatic event during his service. The Tribunal concluded that the condition did not meet the criteria for a war-caused disability. Regarding the alcohol abuse, although a reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship to service was raised, the Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the condition was not attributable to Newton’s eligible war service. Consequently, it found that the alcohol abuse was not war-caused.

The Tribunal's reasoning was grounded in the statutory framework and relevant case law, which required the Commission to prove the relevant connection between the conditions and Newton’s service. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented and applied the principles from precedent cases to determine that Newton’s conditions did not satisfy the criteria for war-causation. The decision to affirm the Commission’s findings was based on the lack of evidence supporting a war-related onset of the psychiatric conditions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, holding that Newton was not entitled to a war-caused disability pension for the diagnosed conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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.