PETER THOMAS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION - [2009] AATA 276

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 276
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/4200

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re PETER THOMAS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Member
Date24 April 2009
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – operational service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions – no factual basis for diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder – posttraumatic stress disorder not war-caused - diagnosis of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder – clinical onset of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and alcohol dependence – no reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised for depressive disorder – depressive disorder not war-caused - reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised for anxiety disorder – satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that anxiety disorder not attributable to eligible war-service – anxiety disorder nor war-caused - decisions under review affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 120, 120A
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 42C
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136; (2003) 37 AAR 363
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 60 ALD 401; [2000] FCA 532
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 65 ALD 609
Drew v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 537
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82; (1998) 49 ALD 193; (1998) 27 AAR 144
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCR 633
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
REASONS FOR DECISION

24 April 2009 Mr R G Kenny, Member

Background
1. Peter Thomas served with the Royal Australian Navy (“the RAN”) from 3 January 1967 until 2 January 1987. On 2 November 2005, he lodged with the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”), in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”), a claim for a disability pension for “posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence” which he contended were related to his RAN service.
2. On 17 October 2006, the respondent determined that the appropriate medical diagnoses for the claimed conditions were anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and alcohol abuse. It also determined that those conditions were not related to Mr Thomas’ service. On 10 June 2008, the Veterans’ Review Board (“the Board”) affirmed the decision in relation to anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and alcohol abuse on the basis that these conditions were not related to Mr Thomas’ service. The Board also affirmed the decision in relation to posttraumatic stress disorder on the basis that one of the relevant diagnostic criteria for that condition was not met.
Issues and Service
3. Initially, the matters for determination were all of the conditions dealt with by the Board. However, the parties reached agreement in relation to alcohol abuse and an order was made in relation to that condition in accordance with ss 42C(1) and 42C(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.…

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 PETER THOMAS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Details

AGLC: PETER THOMAS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2009] AATA 276
Case: [2009] AATA 276
Decision Date: 24 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peter Thomas and the Repatriation Commission concerns an application for veterans' entitlements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Peter Thomas, a former member of the Royal Australian Navy, sought compensation for psychiatric conditions he claimed were caused by his service. The Repatriation Commission reviewed his application but found against him, and the matter was brought to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether Mr. Thomas's psychiatric conditions, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder, were war-caused and thus eligible for compensation under the Act. The court had to determine if there was a reasonable hypothesis that the psychiatric conditions were attributable to Mr. Thomas's service, and if they met the clinical onset criteria as per the legislation.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence and diagnosis provided by medical professionals and assessed the connection between the claimed conditions and Mr. Thomas's service in the Navy. The court found that there was no factual basis for the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, and that it was not war-caused. For anxiety disorder, although a reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship to service was raised, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was not attributable to the eligible war-service. The same conclusion was reached for the depressive disorder, with no reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship to service raised. Consequently, the court upheld the original decisions of the Repatriation Commission.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decisions under review, meaning that Mr. Thomas's application for compensation for the psychiatric conditions was denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions 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.