Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 255
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/0808
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re MICHAEL ROBERT PATNAUDE Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member Date1 April 2008
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(sgd) E.A. Shanahan
Member
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – disability pension – operational service in Vietnam – severity of claim psychosocial stressors – diagnosis of claimed psychiatric disorder – alcohol dependence – credibility of the applicant – decision affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s
Statements of Principles Instrument No 76 of 1998 Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse
Statements of Principles Instrument No 3 of 1999 Post‑Traumatic Stress Disorder
Statements of Principles Instrument No 54 of 1999 Post‑Traumatic Stress Disorder
Statements of Principles Instrument No 1 of 2000 Generalised Anxiety Disorder
Statements of Principles Instrument No 101 of 2007 Anxiety Disorder
Statements of Principles Instrument No 17 of 2007 Depressive DisorderStatements of Principles Instrument No 58 of 1998 Depressive Disorder
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Constable v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 928
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission (2004) FCA 309
Dickson v Repatriation Commission (1999) 29 AAR 235
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2005) FCAFC 83 (13 May 2005)
Meehan v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 1371
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332
White and Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 April 2008 Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member
1. Mr Patnaude lodged a claim for disability pension with the Repatriation Commission on 28 April 2006 on the basis that his alcoholism, depression and anxiety were war-caused conditions. This claim was rejected by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission on 3 May 2006, following which Mr Patnaude sought review by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB). On 16 February 2007 the VRB affirmed the primary decision. Mr Patnaude lodged an application for review of the VRB decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 16 March 2007.
2. Mr Patnaude was represented by Mr A Larkin of Counsel, instructed by Williams Winter, Solicitors and the Repatriation Commission by Mr G Purcell of Counsel, instructed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T‑documents). The parties tendered the following documents:
Applicant
Respondent
The Applicant's statement dated 9 March 2007 – Exhibit A1.
T‑documents – Exhibit R1
The report of Dr Nigel Strauss dated 15 August 2007 – Exhibit R2
The Transcript of the VRB Hearing dated 16 February 2007 – Exhibit R3
Report of Writeway Research Services dated 13 September 2007 – Exhibit R4
The applicant's service medical record – Exhibit R5
The Applicant's claim for disability pension dated – 12 February 1998 – Exhibit R6
Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital Clinical…
Continue reading Patnaude and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Patnaude and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 255
- Case
- [2008] AATA 255
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Commission had correctly applied the legislative criteria and followed the proper procedures in reaching its decision. It examined the evidence presented to the Commission and determined that there was sufficient basis for the decision made. The court held that the Commission had properly considered Mr. Patnaude's medical history, service records, and other relevant factors. The Tribunal found no procedural errors or misapplication of the law by the Commission, and thus affirmed the decision under review. Consequently, Mr. Patnaude's appeal was dismissed.
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.