PADDON Applicant And REPATRIATION COMMISSION - [2010] AATA 470

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 470
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/2633

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re RICHARD PADDON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr P McDermott, RFD, Senior Member and
Dr G J Maynard, Brigadier (Rtd), Member
Date25 June 2010
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...................[Sgd]...............
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Benefits and entitlements – Whether the applicant’s conditions are related to his war service – Decision affirmed.
Veteran’s Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 13, 120, 120A, 196a, 196b, 180a
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
REASONS FOR DECISION

25 June 2010 Dr P McDermott, RFD, Senior Member and Dr G J Maynard, Brigadier (Rtd), Member

INTRODUCTION
1.      Mr Richard Paddon (the veteran), who has a number of accepted disabilities, claims that because of his war service with the Australian Army he has conditions of anxiety disorder and depression. We have to determine whether these conditions are related to his war service.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF VETERAN
2.      The veteran served with the Australian Army from 8 May 1967 until 7 May 1970. We are satisfied that the veteran rendered two periods of operational service in South Vietnam: 21 January 1969 to 27 April 1969; and, 25 October 1969 to 7 December 1969.
3.      The veteran, who trained as a pioneer field engineer, served with the 32 Small Ship Squadron in Vietnam as an engineer aboard the AV Clive Steele.
4.      A statement of the veteran was admitted into evidence. He also gave oral evidence at the hearing concerning the circumstances of his operational service which are also mentioned in the reasons of the Veterans’ Review Board in their decision dated 29 April 2009.
5.      In January 1969, the AV Clive Steele was berthed alongside the USS Tom Green County in Vung Tau Harbour. The USS Tom Green County had been previously damaged by enemy fire. The veteran remarked that he was of an inquisitive nature and “simply walked over, and a young officer took me up there and showed me around”. The veteran stated that it “was just a huge black mess”. The veteran mentioned that the doors on the bulkhead “were totally blown out and buckled and bent”. Commenting on what he had seen the veteran said “I believed it was a nasty affair and I started to get quite concerned”.
6.      The veteran had acknowledged before the Veterans’ Review Board that he was not aboard the AV Clive Steele when it was subject to rocket attacks. The veteran mistakenly mentioned in previous proceeding that he had been on board the vessel when it was fired upon because he had been convinced by crew members that he was there at the time.
7.      The veteran reported a night-time incident…

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 PADDON Applicant And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Details

AGLC: PADDON Applicant And REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2010] AATA 470
Case: [2010] AATA 470
Decision Date: 25 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paddon has applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission concerning his eligibility for certain veterans' benefits under the Veteran’s Entitlements Act 1986. The central issue in the case is whether Paddon’s current medical conditions are related to his war service, which would make him eligible for specific benefits. The case hinges on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act, including ss 9, 13, 120, 120A, 196a, 196b, and 180a, and how they apply to Paddon's circumstances.

The Tribunal examined the evidence presented regarding Paddon’s service history and the onset and progression of his medical conditions. It considered relevant case law, including Lees v Repatriation Commission, Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Cornelius, Repatriation Commission v Deledio, and Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission. The Tribunal assessed whether the medical evidence sufficiently established a causal link between Paddon’s conditions and his war service, as required by the Act. In doing so, the Tribunal also considered the principles of statutory interpretation and the burden of proof.

After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that Paddon had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that his medical conditions were related to his war service. The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not clearly link the conditions to Paddon’s service, and therefore, he did not meet the criteria for the benefits under the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision of the Repatriation Commission.

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review, and Paddon is not entitled to the benefits he sought under the Veteran’s Entitlements Act 1986.

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.