Osmon and Repatriation Commission
[2004] AATA 1218
•19 November 2004
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1218
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No S2003/95
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re CLIVE OSMON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member WJF Purcell Date19 November 2004
PlaceAdelaide
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(Signed)
WJF PURCELL
(Senior Member)
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – Disability Pension – entitlement to special rate of pension pursuant to s 24 of the Act – is s 24(1)(c) of the Act satisfied – “alone test” –is applicant, by reason of incapacity from his war-caused conditions alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 24, 120
REASONS FOR DECISION
19 November 2004 Senior Member WJF Purcell 1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) of 25 September 2001 which assessed Disability Pension at 100 percent of the general rate. The Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) affirmed the decision on 16 January 2003.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (the T documents) together with exhibits tendered by the parties. Mr Jolly represented the applicant, who gave oral evidence, and called Dr M Ewer, his treating Psychiatrist, Mr W Edwards, Food Services Manager, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, and Ms S Watson, Acting Director, Staff Counselling Service, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, as witnesses. Mr Crowe represented the Commission, which called Ms K Thompson, former Director, Food and General Services, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, as a witness.
3. The applicant, who is now 59 years of age, was born in the United Kingdom and came to Australia at the age of fourteen. He left school at the age of 16, and worked as a sheet metal worker prior to joining the Royal Australian Navy (the Navy) at the age of 19 in 1964. He was discharged in 1976, when he was 31 years of age. He has the accepted disabilities of “neurotic depression with conversion reaction”, “sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus”, and “bronchitis”. He has been in receipt of Disability Pension since 1986. His rate of pension in 1986 was 10 percent, and then 30 percent. The rate was increased to 80 percent on 21 May 2000, and to 100 percent on 3 July 2001. His last employment was as the Cafeteria Manager at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital. He last worked in July 2001. He maintains that he is entitled to payment of Disability Pension at the special rate, and that he satisfies s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), which as far as is relevant for the purposes of this review, provides:
“(1) This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa)the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab)the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a) either:
(i)the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
(ii)the veteran is, because he or she has suffered or is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, receiving or entitled to receive a pension at the general rate; and
(b)the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran’s incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(c)the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity; and
(d)section 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1) (c):
(a)a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:
(i)the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; or
(ii)the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and
(b)where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented by reason of that incapacity from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking.”
4. The standard of proof is that of “reasonable satisfaction” in accordance with s 120(4) of the Act, which provides:
“(4) Except in making a determination to which subsection (1) or (2) applies, the Commission shall, in making any determination or decision in respect of a matter arising under this Act or the regulations, including the assessment or re-assessment of the rate of a pension granted under Part II or Part IV, decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction.”
5. It is not in dispute that the applicant satisfies ss 24(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Act. The Commission maintains that he does not satisfy s 24(1)(c) of the Act, the so called “alone test”, in that his incapacity from his war-caused conditions was not the sole reason for him ceasing work. He experienced increasing difficulties dealing with organisational changes in the workplace; and in addition, a staff review was undertaken by management. The applicant was offered a targeted voluntary separation package (TVSP), which he accepted. The Commission argues that these factors, unrelated to the applicant’s accepted disabilities, contributed to his ceasing work in July 2001.
6. The applicant gave evidence that from 1975 onwards he had been working as a Cook at the Ryde Psychiatric Hospital in New South Wales. He was experiencing serious matrimonial and psychiatric problems. He resigned from the Ryde Psychiatric Hospital, and was unemployed for 2 months. He decided to bring his wife and children closer to his family in Adelaide; and in early 1980 they moved to Adelaide. Subsequently, the applicant suffered a “breakdown”, and was admitted to the Repatriation General Hospital for treatment. When he had recovered, he sought employment.
7. The applicant commenced work at the Queen Victoria Hospital in 1980/81 as a Cook, and moved later into a managerial position. In 1984, the new Catering Manager offered him the position of Assistant Catering Manager; and subsequently when the Catering Manager left in 1985/86, the applicant took over his position. Some time later the applicant became the Food Services Manager, a higher classified position, with 32 staff members. He consulted Mr John Bowling, Psychologist, intermittently, in the 1980’s in an attempt to give up smoking.
8. In 1988 the amalgamation of the Queen Victoria Hospital and the Women’s and Children’s Hospital (on the Women’s and Children’s Hospital site at North Adelaide) commenced. The applicant and Mr Edwards, who was the Food Services Manager at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, applied for the position of Food Services Manager in the amalgamated organisation. Mr Edwards was the successful applicant. He was appointed Food Services Manager of both sites. The applicant moved to the Women’s and Children’s Hospital site in 1991. He says that he was offered a redundancy package which he refused. In 1992 he was offered the position of Commissary Purchasing Manager, a lower classified position, but with his current salary level maintained. He accepted the offer, and Mr Edwards became his superior. The applicant was responsible now for 2 staff members, not the 32 staff he had supervised at the Queen Victoria Hospital. He said in evidence also, that after the initial tension, he developed a good working relationship with Mr Edwards as they continued to be involved in the setting up of the new kitchen and ancillary matters for the combined hospital.
9. On the evidence, the process of amalgamation took some considerable time, and the applicant said that the Head Cook at the Queen Victoria Hospital took over most of his former duties, whilst the applicant was involved in the planning for the new food services area. The Queen Victoria Hospital had a “plated” service; the Women’s and Children’s Hospital a “bain marie” system. He said that the new kitchen area was too small, standard menus had to be prepared, and costs and supplies had to be reviewed. It is difficult, on the evidence, to pinpoint an exact date; but it appears, that by early 1995, when the amalgamation of the two hospitals had been completed, the applicant’s dissatisfaction with his changed duties, and inability to cope with his new role, became manifest; as did his appreciation of the real change in the duties and, in effect, the downgrading of the importance of his new role.
10. The applicant gave evidence that as Commissary Purchasing Manager he had to control a budget, ensure purchases were made at the best price; and the quality of goods had to be monitored, to ensure that no pilfering was taking place. He said that his level of concentration diminished; and some of the symptoms he experienced in 1980/81 returned; and he consulted Mr Bowling again. He had an overwhelming feeling of demotion, of being given a “window seat”, and gradually becoming less relevant. A Kitchen Manager was appointed, which narrowed the applicant’s sphere of influence. Whereas he had been, in effect, the Assistant Manager of the whole area, and acting as Manager, which he had done previously; this situation no longer prevailed. He says that he found concentrating during the day a difficulty, and he took work home. He was obliged to check invoices, complete records on a spread sheet; and provide Mr Edwards with a breakdown of figures at the end of each month – meticulous details such as the quantity of milk supplied to the wards. Gradually the spread sheets were put on the computer, but the applicant says that he continued to lose concentration and be overwhelmed by the detail required.
11. At about the same time, and as a result of the amalgamation, an ongoing review of management structures was taking place. The food services area came under review, and in particular the applicant’s position, and that of Mrs De Biasi, the Manager of the cafeteria. There were problems in the cafeteria because of the actions of some militant staff members, whom the others followed. It would appear that the Manager considered that the applicant, having supervised some 32 staff previously, could cope with these more difficult staff; and for this, and other reasons which remain unclear, the applicant and Mrs De Biasi changed roles in late 1999/2000.
12. The applicant had about 12 staff to supervise, but he found this very stressful, as he felt that he was always in conflict with the staff members, who were obstructive and difficult. During 1999 and 2000, at Mr Edwards’ suggestion, he sought assistance from Ms Watson, the Hospital’s Staff Counsellor. He said in evidence that Mr Edwards had raised with him his poor work performance on several occasions, and the applicant was fearful of disciplinary action. He said that by March/April 2000 he had made the decision that he would retire because of his health and work problems.
13. The applicant gave evidence that between June 2000 and September 2000, whilst the review continued, he had regular discussions with Mr Edwards about his inability to concentrate and comprehend instructions. On 18 August 2000 the applicant applied for Disability Pension in respect of “hearing damage and tinnitus”, and for an increase in pension on the basis that his emotional condition was becoming worse. He requested to be assessed by Dr Ewer, who saw him on 30 October 2000, and assessed his impairment rating at 36 points. Dr Ewer continues to be the applicant’s treating psychiatrist. In October 2000 Ms Thompson informed the Managers that there was one too many Managers in the Food Department. In the following week, Ms Thompson told the applicant, and Mrs De Biasi, that she could offer a TVSP to one of them; and asked which of them wanted the package. The applicant indicated that he was interested in the proposal, and Ms Thompson told him that he would need to write a letter requesting the package. On 8 November 2000 a Staff Development and Performance Review Form [Exhibit R2] was completed by the applicant and Ms Thompson. On the evidence, its sole purpose was to initiate the procedures necessary to facilitate the offering of a TVSP to the applicant.
14. The applicant ceased working in the cafeteria in January 2001. He was admitted to Flinders Private Hospital for a hernia repair operation in February 2001. Six weeks later he returned to work, where until April 2001, he was involved in the handing over of his duties. He took recreation leave in late April/early May 2001, and he finished working on 6 July 2001.
15. On 31 July 2001 the applicant lodged a claim for increase in Disability Pension on the basis that his condition had become markedly worse and he had “… accepted a redundancy package from my employer due to my war caused disabilities …” [T4/26]. On 25 September 2001 a delegate decided to increase pension to 100 percent of the general rate. The delegate considered that the special rate was not payable, as there were medical conditions which were not service-related disabilities, that contributed substantially to the applicant’s inability to work. The applicant applied to the VRB for review of the decision, and on 16 January 2003 the VRB affirmed the decision.
16. Ms Watson said in evidence that from 1998/99 onwards she had an expanding role in counselling staff who were experiencing difficulties in accepting the proposed amalgamation, and adjusting to their changed roles in the new organisation. The applicant was one of those staff members. He was complaining that he could not concentrate, and that he had so much to remember. He was concerned about the major change, and his ability to cope. She saw him frequently during the period he was deciding whether to accept the TVSP. She said that he told her that he was not ready to retire as yet, and was procrastinating about making the decision. He was highly anxious and stressed. This combination of his psychological problems, and his circumstances at work, led to his emotional state becoming worse. Ms Watson said that when the applicant was at the Queen Victoria Hospital he was quite cheerful; but it was the increasing changes that accompanied the amalgamation which contributed to his later anxiety. Because he was depressed, he found it difficult to cope with change. I accept Ms Watson’s evidence.
17. Mr Edwards, the applicant’s immediate supervisor, has known him since 1991, and they worked together from November 1992 onwards on both sites. On 8 August 2003 in reply to a letter from Mr Crowe, he stated in part:
“…
Following a successful trial within the department of Nutrition and Food Services, it was identified that the positions of Purchasing Manager and Commissary Manager could be amalgamated into one position, and one position would be surplus to requirements. Mr Osmon was employed as a Commissary Manager and therefore had the option of expressing interest in a targeted voluntary separation package (TVSP), which he did.
The decision to declare Mr Osmon’s position excess to the department’s requirements was therefore made independently of his personnel circumstances.
I understand that Mr Osmon’s decision to accept a TVSP was due to health problems which was contributing to his difficulties at work. Had Mr Osmon not expressed interest in a TVSP when payment would not have been made as the scheme is voluntary.
I believe that it was timely that Mr Osmon was able to secure a TVSP when he did, as I have no doubt that he would have been counseled [sic] in relation to his work performance, which may have lead to disciplinary action, including possible dismissal.
…” [Exhibit A3]
18. In the course of his oral evidence, Mr Edwards said that from about 1995 the applicant’s work performance gradually deteriorated, and by 1999 it had become obvious that he did not understand what was required of him. Mr Edwards would give instructions, and return later to find that the applicant had not implemented the required change, or had gone down the wrong track. Mr Edwards said that he moved staff around trying to match the skill levels of the staff with the work. Mrs De Biasi, Manager of the cafeteria, had staff difficulties, as several militants had influenced the remaining 10-12 staff members, and all became difficult to manage. Mr Edwards thought that as the applicant had previous supervisory experience he could handle these difficulties; but the staff continued to be just as troublesome with the applicant as they had with Mrs De Biasi.
19. Mr Edwards gave evidence that during the year 2000, he and the applicant had several discussions in relation to the applicant’s problems at work. The applicant told Mr Edwards that he was being treated for depression, but did not mention his service in Vietnam. He said that it was part of the Department’s ongoing review of management structures and work processes to find the most efficient way of running the Department. If there was a position that could be saved, then management would look at it. In Mr Edwards’ opinion, the applicant was not capable of doing his job, and they had tried various options that had not worked. The TVSP offered a “win/win” situation. Had the Department needed the position (which was subsequently abolished) the TVSP would not have been appropriate. He said that if the applicant had been performing his functions satisfactorily, he was not really sure that the new management structure would have been pursued.
20. Ms Thompson gave evidence that she commenced work at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in 1989, and from 1992 onwards was the Director of Nutrition and Food Services, a newly created position. She said that as a result of the amalgamation, and in the period 1992 to 2001, she had restructured various parts of the food services, on many, many occasions, and had probably given out 20-22 TVSPs, all of which had to meet the criteria that management would abolish the position, lose the funding, and be unable to fill that position. With the amalgamation of the two food services, the reduction of one position was an efficiency that could be identified. She said in evidence that she was under an enormous amount of pressure to reduce one position; that it did not really matter in the end where the position was. She had to work out some way of advising her superior, Mr Widdas, of which position she should lose. All positions were examined closely, including Mr Edwards’ position. She had to choose one member of the food services management team, and it had to be a position that could be lost and not filled. That was the really key criterion, and there were only 2 to choose from, as it turned out. It had to be Mrs De Biasi’s position or the applicant’s position, but Mrs De Biasi was not interested in a TVSP at that time.
21. Ms Thompson said in evidence that after the applicant’s duties changed in 1995, she observed some time later forgetfulness, and perhaps a bit of vagueness, and there were a lot of concerns about his performance. They decided that the applicant and Mrs De Biasi should swap positions. It was on the basis that they had concluded that it would probably work best if Mrs De Biasi worked in the Commissary area, because they had developed some systems for costing the issues in that area. She did not recall it necessarily being anything to do with the applicant’s performance. It was just to do with the fact that this would probably work better that way.
22. In the course of her evidence, Ms Thompson was asked by Mr Crowe whether she was aware of any health issues relating to the applicant. She said:
“ … It depends on when exactly you ask ---
Mr Crowe: I presume from that answer that there was a time at which you became aware? --- Only because Clive himself told me. After we had actually negotiated his TVSP, I can recall really clearly one day in his office when he actually almost confided in me that he himself had been suffering anxiety and was having some treatment, but I did not know that before that time.
Mr Crowe: That was after the TVSP was negotiated? --- Yes, it was.
Mr Crowe: Do you have any idea of when the TVSP was negotiated? --- Well, I’m just reflecting back on my own memo. I know that Clive’s package – Clive’s last day of work, I think, was on 6 July and my memo is dated 23 February 2001, and I seem to recall that maybe in that January – I seem to recall Clive going on holidays around that time and us talking about whether it would have been resolved around that time. My recollection is that it took about 6 months before it was finally processed through the Department of Health Services.
Mr Crowe: Do you have any awareness of the origins of this particular problem that Mr Osmon has? --- Two things I can say. One thing is that I was always very aware of Clive’s personal circumstances in that I do know that his wife has a fairly serious illness, and that caused him some considerable concern on many occasions; and I think it’s fair for me to say very truthfully that I was always under the impression that his concern for his wife’s well-being was a major factor on his work. The second thing that I can say that I really don’t actually know a lot about is that I do know that Clive’s a Vietnam veteran. That’s all I really know. We’ve not really ever had any conversation about that, except that – and I don’t really know a lot about it – except that Clive was telling me about his holiday in Vietnam that he took after he had his package and was telling me, you know, how interesting it was to go back to Vietnam. I actually don’t know a great deal about Clive’s role in Vietnam. I know that he was in the Navy. I don’t really know anything else, so I don’t actually know. Clive wasn’t sick at work, so I didn’t see sick certificates. It’s not something that I was ever really aware of.
[Transcript pp 7-8]
…
Mr Jolly: What were the issues, as you recall them, relating to Mr Osmon’s wife, if you are able to tell the Tribunal what you recall were the issues that Mr Osmon had raised with you about the difficulties his wife was having? --- My understanding is that Clive Osmon’s wife, Deborah Osmon, was – had suffered from schizophrenia to a fairly significant degree and that he found that she – my understanding is that she had a fairly significant level of medication to keep that under control and that there were times when that medication didn’t – was out of control for one reason or another. I don’t think it was because she didn’t take it. I thought – the impression that I have is that it was to do with the fine balance and level of that medication and that this required frequent spells in Glenside and that that was quite stressful for Clive, because in those circumstances he was required to really do all of the care for her ---
Mr Jolly: Could – sorry? --- And that the other aspect of that was that obviously, when Deborah was at home, the impression that I have was that Clive was also required to do a fair amount of work to look after her.
Mr Jolly: Can you recall when that was first mentioned to you, a rough date, even if it was – even if you use the date of amalgamation versus the date that Mr Osmon left the Women’s and Children’s? --- Somewhere, maybe in the middle of all of that is all I can really say. We – it was not something that Clive talked about a lot openly, but probably increasingly as Deborah seemed to be not as well and required some hospitalisation, then he would mention that. I certainly was aware of this being quite a burden – you know, it was a burdensome issue for Clive – about which, you know, we had some natural concern for one of our fellow employees who was in a situation that was actually quite difficult for him to manage.
…” [Transcript pp 23-24]
23. Ms Thompson gave evidence that after the organisational decision to restructure had been made, she had discussions with the applicant as to whether he would be interested in the package. Prior to these discussions she talked to Ms Watson, seeking her opinion as to how the applicant would react. She was conscious of his difficult domestic circumstances, and did not want the applicant to feel offended and hurt by the fact that she was thinking of abolishing his position. The applicant stated that he would be interested in the package, and in the process he had to become a redeployee, had to be considered for redeployment, and one part of the process was a Staff Development and Performance Review [Exhibit R2]. The Review Form was completed for that sole purpose. Under the heading “Barriers to Performance : Consider work factors that impede you in the efficient discharge of your duties:” the applicant stated:
“My health has proved an imposition to my abilities to carry out my duties efficiently and effectively. In an endeavour to assist me through this, I have been seeing the staff counsellor for the last 9 months.” [Exhibit R2]
24. Ms Thompson, in her comments in the form, agreed with the applicant’s assessment of his work performance and stated that:
“I agree with Clive’s assessment of his work performance, and his current abilities. He has suffered recently from personal problems which have required assistance from Staff Counselling. Similarly he has been affected by his own ill-health increasingly which has affected his work performance.” [Exhibit R2]
Ms Thompson gave evidence that as the applicant did not wish to be redeployed anywhere else, they had been told to put in these health issues, and “that’s actually what Clive asked us to put as well.” [Transcript p 21]
25. Dr Ewer, who has been the applicant’s treating psychiatrist since October 2000, has seen him on 13 occasions; and said in evidence that these consultations were more frequent in the beginning, but now are 3 monthly. He considered in October 2000 that the applicant had a number of symptoms with difficulties at work, but able to continue, and stay employable. The applicant did not recognise at first, why he was not performing in the workplace, but he came to the realisation that his work was not up to scratch. He may well have made a link between his depression and his poor performance. His worry about his depression could have stressed him even more. At times he seemed totally overwhelmed by outside stresses or depression.
26. Dr Ewer said in evidence that the applicant suffers from a major depressive illness - not post-traumatic stress disorder. His symptoms first occurred in 1980/81. They worsened in 1995 when he was 50 years of age; and one explanation could be that his depression returned after a break of more than 10 years when his work situation changed significantly. Dr Ewer said that it is well recognised that post-traumatic stress disorder worsens when men reach 50 years of age; but the applicant’s condition is not post-traumatic stress disorder, and there is no evidence of any increase in the level of depression when men reach 50 years of age. I accept Dr Ewer’s evidence.
27. The applicant gave lengthy oral evidence. He is a poor historian. It must have been difficult for him to recall all the details of the sequence of events, but I consider however, that his lapses of memory may be selective. He referred only to the work stressors affecting his depressive illness. There was no reference to any domestic tensions. I find it surprising also, that he has been consulting Dr Ewer for nearly 4 years, and has seen him on 13 occasions, but Dr Ewer has made no reference in his reports, or in his oral evidence, to the applicant’s wife’s schizophrenic illness, her admissions to Glenside, and the effects of his wife’s illness upon the applicant’s depressive illness. I gained the strong impression that the applicant deliberately over-emphasised the work stressors, whilst being less than frank about other stressors in his life in an attempt to obtain a benefit. Of course I do not reject all his evidence, but look to other more acceptable testimony to corroborate the applicant’s evidence, and to support my findings of fact in important areas.
28. Mr Edwards’ oral evidence to the effect that the applicant’s inability to do his job was at least a major factor in the decision to review the two positions, is somewhat in conflict with his written answers to questions put to him by the applicant’s solicitors and the Commission. Perhaps he has softened his attitude to the applicant over the 3 years since he left his employment; but in any event I prefer the evidence of Ms Thompson to Mr Edwards in any area of conflict in the evidence. Ms Thompson impressed me as a capable supervisor and as an objective witness.
29. On my view of the evidence, the applicant, whilst suffering from the accepted depressive condition, was able to cope quite adequately with his duties in the Queen Victoria Hospital from 1981 until about 1995, when the difficulties inherent in the Hospital restructuring, combined with a change of duties to unfamiliar work, the lessening of status and self esteem unsettled the applicant. These changes exacerbated his depression and ability to cope. I accept Ms Thompson’s evidence that the job review was undertaken in the normal course of management rationalisation of the two catering entities. On the evidence the applicant’s instability was further exacerbated with the swapping of duties and the militant cafeteria staff. I am reasonably satisfied on the evidence that the applicant’s cessation of work, whilst related in part to his accepted depressive condition, and its effect on his ability to work, resulted from the staff review which necessitated the shedding of one of two positions in the section. The applicant accepted the targeted voluntary separation package. I am reasonably satisfied on the evidence, that the applicant did not cease to engage in remunerative work by reason of his war-caused disabilities alone. I am reasonably satisfied on the evidence, that the applicant ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his incapacity from his war-caused disease; and that he does not satisfy s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
30. For these reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 30 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member WJF Purcell
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDates of Hearing 27/28 April 2004
Date of Decision 19 November 2004
Counsel for the Applicant Mr E Jolly
Solicitor for the Applicant Tindall Gask Bentley
Counsel for the Respondent Mr A Crowe
Solicitor for the Respondent DVA
0
0
0