Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 245
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No S 200600179
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re PAUL MALCOLM DIGNON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr J G Short (Member)
Professor P L Reilly AO (Member)Date15 April 2009
PlaceAdelaide
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 21 November 2005 in respect of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence and in place of that decision determines that the conditions of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused with effect from 17 March 2005. The Tribunal remits the matter to the Repatriation Commission for re-assessment of the applicant’s entitlement to pension in accordance with these reasons.
..............................................
J G SHORT
(Member)
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – operational service – claim that post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence were war-caused – consideration of Statements of Principles – encountering decapitated bodies – being caught in a civilian riot – decision under review set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6, 9, 13(1), 20, 120(1), 120(3), 120A and 196
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 433
Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 65 ALD 609
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Statement of Principles Instrument No 5 of 2008
Statement of Principles Instrument No 3 of 1999
Statement of Principles Instrument No 54 of 1999
Statement of Principles Instrument No 1 of 2009
Statement of Principles Instrument No 76 of 1998REASONS FOR DECISION
15 April 2009 Mr J G Short (Member)
Professor P L Reilly AO (Member)1. Paul Dignon was engaged in operational service in East Timor from 23 February 2000 until 4 June 2000. On 17 June 2005 he lodged a claim for acceptance of conditions now diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol dependence. The Repatriation Commission (the Commission) determined that PTSD and alcohol dependence were not relevantly related to service and on 11 April 2006 the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) affirmed that decision.
issue before the tribunal
2. The issue before the Tribunal is whether the above conditions are war-caused for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VE Act). Both parties accept the diagnoses of Mr Dignon’s conditions and on the evidence, this Tribunal finds accordingly.
3. It is common ground that if Mr Dignon is successful in his claim, the earliest date of effect pursuant to s 20 of the VE Act would be 17 March 2005.
background
4. Mr Dignon first enlisted in the Australian Army on 9 April 1980.…
Continue reading PAUL MALCOLM DIGNON and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- PAUL MALCOLM DIGNON and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2009] AATA 245
- Case
- [2009] AATA 245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal could conclude, on the evidence presented, that the applicant's PTSD and alcohol dependence were war-caused. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's experiences during his service, including encountering decapitated bodies and being caught in a civilian riot, met the criteria set out in the relevant Statements of Principles. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant’s alcoholism was causally related to his PTSD and whether the Commission had properly applied the law in its assessment of the applicant’s claims.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant's experiences during his service were traumatic and likely to cause PTSD. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's alcohol dependence began following these traumatic experiences and concluded that it was reasonably attributable to the PTSD. The Tribunal held that the Repatriation Commission had not adequately considered the evidence and had failed to properly apply the relevant legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision and determined that the applicant's PTSD and alcohol dependence were war-caused, with effect from 17 March 2005.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Repatriation Commission for reassessment of the applicant's entitlement to pension, in light of its determination that his PTSD and alcohol dependence were war-caused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 21 November 2005 in respect of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence and in place of that decision determines that the conditions of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence are war-caused with effect from 17 March 2005. The Tribunal remits the matter to the Repatriation Commission for re-assessment of the applicant’s entitlement to pension in accordance with these reasons.
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.