Parr and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 568

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 568
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2003/1534

VETERAN’S APPEALS DIVISION )

Re PHILLIP PARR

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N BELL, Member
Date3 June 2004
PlaceSydney

Decision
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal decides that:

1. The Applicant suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse; and

2. These conditions are not war caused.

[Sgd] Ms N Bell, Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERAN’S AFFAIRS – matter remitted to Tribunal from the Federal Court – question of clinical onset of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse – whether clinical onset occurred within the requisite two year period – decision set aside
Repatriation Commission v Nation (1995) 57 FCR 25
Parr and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 93
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2003) 36 AAR 484
Veteran’s Entitlement Act 1986 ss120(1)
Statement of Principle No. 1. 2000
Statement of Principle No.76 1998
REASONS FOR DECISION

3 June 2004 MS N BELL

1.      This application comes before the Tribunal pursuant to orders made by the Federal Court of Australia on 15 September 2003 remitting the matter to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law. The Respondent’s appeal to the Federal Court concerned the Tribunal’s decision of 3 February 2003 which set aside the decision under review (the Respondent’s decision dated 27 October 2002 to refuse the Applicant’s claim for post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), affirmed by the Veterans review Board on 13 November 2001) and substituted a decision that the Applicant suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse which are war caused.
2.      I refer to the Tribunal’s decision in Parr and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 93, generally for the background to this matter.
3.      Moore J’s reasons for judgment indicate that the parties were in agreement that the Tribunal’s decision should be set aside, because the Tribunal’s approach to the question of clinical onset, both of the generalised anxiety disorder and the alcohol abuse, was deficient and reveals an error of law having regard to the judgment of the Full Court in Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 36 AAR 484. Moore J said:
“12.          …That matter concerned one of the Statement of Principles considered by the Tribunal in the present matter. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had not erred in determining when there had been "clinical onset". The Tribunal had said that the features of a generalised anxiety disorder referred to in clause 8 of SoP No. 1 of 2000 were "cumulative and so the material must point to his suffering from all of them in the two years after his experiencing the severe psychosocial stressors before it can be said that there is material pointing to the clinical onset of his generalised anxiety disorder in the relevant period."
In approving this approach the Full Court said (at [16]):
The purpose of the definition is to identify those symptoms (or features) which, if observed by a…

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 Parr and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Parr and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 568
Case: [2004] AATA 568
Decision Date: 3 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Mr. Parr, sought a review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission, which had denied his claim for war-related psychiatric conditions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with examining the clinical onset of Mr. Parr’s generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse, specifically whether these conditions arose within the requisite two-year period post-service as defined by relevant legislation and guidelines. The matter was remitted to the AAT from the Federal Court.

The central legal issues before the AAT involved interpreting the statutory requirements under the Veteran’s Entitlement Act 1986 and applying relevant Statements of Principle. The AAT had to determine whether the applicant's conditions were war-caused and whether the clinical onset occurred within the two-year period following the cessation of his service. The AAT also considered relevant case law, such as Lees v Repatriation Commission, and the Federal Court's decision in Repatriation Commission v Nation.

The AAT found that the decision made by the Repatriation Commission was flawed due to an incorrect application of the statutory requirements and an erroneous interpretation of the relevant Statements of Principle. The AAT concluded that the applicant did indeed suffer from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse but determined these conditions were not war-caused. Consequently, the AAT set aside the original decision and substituted its own decision, affirming the applicant's conditions but ruling they were not linked to his service.

The AAT ordered that the decision under review be set aside, and in its place, the Tribunal decided that the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse, but these conditions were not war-caused. This ruling effectively maintained the applicant’s entitlement to these conditions but denied the war-related aspect, thereby impacting the nature and extent of the benefits he could claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal decides that:

1. The Applicant suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse; and

2. These conditions are not war caused.

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.