Organ and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 671

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 671
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2002/778

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re ALAN ORGAN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr IR Way, Member
Date29 June 2004
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...................[Sgd].....................
IR Way
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – pension – psychiatric condition – diagnosis – applicant did not respond to events with intense fear, helplessness or horror – does not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD – applicant suffering from anxiety disorder – no connection between anxiety disorder and war service – no reasonable hypothesis raised - decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 119, 120(1), 120(3), 120(4), 120A, 196A, 196B
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 160 ALR 17
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 203
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 25 AAR 396
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Re Budworth and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 127
REASONS FOR DECISION

29 June 2004 Mr IR Way, Member

1.       This is an application by Alan Organ for review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission on 30 October 2001 and affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) on 11 July 2002, that refused the applicant’s claim for war-caused post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
2. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1 – T6) and other documentary evidence as follows:
Exhibit A1     Statement of Alan William Organ dated 12 November 2002
Exhibit A2     Statement of Brian O’Connor dated 1 December 2002
Exhibit A3     Statement of Peter Brian Schwarze dated 18 February 2003
Exhibit A4     Report of Dr Janis Carter dated 30 November 2002
Exhibit A5     Report of Dr Janis Carter dated 13 December 2002
Exhibit A6     Supplementary Statement of Alan Organ dated 7 May 2004
Exhibit R1     Writeway Report dated 1 March 2003
Exhibit R2Supplementary Writeway Report dated 18 April 2003
Exhibit R3Supplementary Writeway Report dated 9 September
Exhibit R4Supplementary Writeway Report dated 25 November 2003
Exhibit R5Supplementary Writeway Report dated 26 November 2003
Exhibit R6Report of Dr Kingswell dated 21 May 2003
Exhibit R7Writeway Facsimiles (2) dated 20 May 2003

3. The applicant was represented by Mr RJ Anderson of Counsel, instructed by Terence O’Connor, Solicitor and the respondent was represented by Mr B Williams, Departmental Advocate. The applicant, Mr B O’Connor and Dr W Kingswell gave oral evidence. Dr J Carter, Mr P Schwarze, Lieutenant Colonel D Overstead Rtd, Major R Baldwin Rtd, Major J Tilbrook Rtd and Mr I Laurie gave evidence by telephone.
4. The applicant was born on 3 April 1945 and served in the Australian Army Corps of Royal Australian Signals from 30 June 1965 to 31…

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 Organ and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Organ and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 671
Case: [2004] AATA 671
Decision Date: 29 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an applicant appealing against a decision of the Repatriation Commission that denied their claim for a psychiatric pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The applicant argued that their anxiety disorder, which developed after their military service, was connected to their service and thus entitled to a pension. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues were whether the applicant’s anxiety disorder met the criteria for a psychiatric pension and whether there was a connection between the disorder and their military service. The court had to consider whether the applicant's condition met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and whether it was reasonably connected to the service.

The court examined the evidence and found that the applicant did not respond to events with intense fear, helplessness, or horror, and therefore did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. It was also determined that the anxiety disorder did not have a connection to the applicant's military service. The court held that no reasonable hypothesis was raised that could establish a link between the anxiety disorder and the service. Consequently, the decision of the Repatriation Commission was affirmed.

The court’s decision was based on the lack of a sufficient causal link between the anxiety disorder and the applicant’s military service. The Tribunal upheld the original decision, and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed. The decision under review was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision 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.