Parr and Repatriation Commission - [2003] AATA 93

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 93
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2001/1809

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re PHILIP PARR

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell
Date3 February 2003
PlaceSydney

Decision
The decision under review is set aside. In substitution for that decision the Tribunal decides that the Applicant suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse which are war-caused. The date of effect of the decision is 15 June 2000.

[SGD] Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – whether the applicant suffers from the conditions of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse – whether these conditions are war-caused – decision under review set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 – ss 9, 120, 120A
Statement of Principles Instrument No.1 of 2000 – Revocation of Statements of Principles concerning Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Anxiety Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition and Determination of Statement of Principles concerning Anxiety Disorder
Statement of Principles Instrument No. 76 of 1998 – Revocation of Statement of Principles concerning Psychoactive Substance Abuse or Dependence and Determination of Statement of Principles concerning Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Harris v Repatriation Commission (2000) 31 AAR 270
Arnott v Repatriation Commission (2001) 32 AAR 445
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271
REASONS FOR DECISION

3 February 2003   Ms N Bell

1.       This is an application by Mr Philip Parr (“the Applicant”) for review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the Respondent”) dated 27 October 2000 to refuse the Applicant’s claim for post traumatic stress disorder as being war caused. The Respondent’s decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 13 November 2001 and the Applicant lodged an application for review with this Tribunal on 28 November 2001.
2.       At the hearing before the Tribunal the Applicant was represented by Mr Brian Winship and the Respondent was represented by Mr Stephen Modder. The Applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal as did Dr Anthony Dinnen. The following documentary evidence was before the Tribunal:

Exhibit

Description

Date

TD1

T1-T16

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions

26 July 2002

A2

Report of Dr A Dinnen

19 April 2002

R1

Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions

19 November 2002

R3

Report of Dr R Haik

5 September 2002

R4

Clinical Notes from Dr Calverley

Background
3.       It is not in dispute that the Applicant, now aged 59, entered the Royal Australian Navy on 5 January 1959 and was discharged on 30 December 1971. He had two periods of operational service, on the HMAS Yarra, from 25 April 1966 to 9 May 1966 and from 26 May 1966 to 9 June 1966 (T3).
4.       It is also not in dispute that the Applicant began his naval training at HMAS Nerimba, a shore station near Blacktown and, as a fully trained fitter and turner/engine room artificer (ERA) he was posted to HMAS Anzac in 1963. After 18 months he was promoted to…

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 [2003] AATA 93
Case: [2003] AATA 93
Decision Date: 3 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Repatriation Commission, which had refused to recognise that the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse, and that these conditions were caused by the applicant’s war service. The applicant sought a declaration that the decision was legally erroneous, that the Commission had failed to consider relevant evidence, and that the decision should be set aside and substituted with a decision recognising the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse, whether these conditions were war-caused, and whether the Commission’s decision was legally erroneous. The Tribunal considered the evidence before it, including medical reports and statements from the applicant and his wife, and determined that the applicant did indeed suffer from these conditions, which were caused by his war service. The Tribunal found that the Commission had failed to consider relevant evidence and had made errors in its approach to the applicant’s claims.

The Tribunal set aside the decision of the Commission and substituted its own decision recognising the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claims were supported by substantial evidence, including the medical reports and statements from the applicant and his wife. The Tribunal also found that the Commission had failed to consider relevant evidence and had made errors in its approach to the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be set aside and that, in substitution for that decision, the Tribunal decided that the applicant suffered from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse, which were war-caused. The Tribunal ordered that the date of effect of the decision be 15 June 2000.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside. In substitution for that decision the Tribunal decides that the Applicant suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse which are war-caused. The date of effect of the decision is 15 June 2000.

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.

Exhibit	Description	Date
TD1	T1-T16
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions	26 July 2002
A2	Report of Dr A Dinnen	19 April 2002
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions	19 November 2002
R3	Report of Dr R Haik	5 September 2002
R4	Clinical Notes from Dr Calverley