Peterson and Repatriation Commission - [2004] AATA 1370

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1370
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2003/1066
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

Re: WAYNE GEORGE PETERSON
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal:       Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member
Date:             21 December 2004
Place:            Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) E.A. Shanahan
Member

CATCHWORDS – Veteran’s Affairs – mild generalised anxiety disorder – alcohol abuse – severe psycho‑social stressors – date of onset of anxiety – stressors occurring both during operational and eligible service
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Statement of Principles Instrument Nº 1 of 2000
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 707 (2 July 2004)
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 200 ALR 332
REASONS FOR DECISION
21 December 2004  Miss E.A. Shanahan, Member
1.      This is an application for review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB) dated 3 July 2003. The VRB affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent dated 20 February 2002 which denied the claim by Mr Wayne George Peterson (the applicant) for lower back pain, impotence, anxiety, stress and peptic ulcer disease. The respondent accepted liability for the applicant’s claim of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus and gastro‑oesophageal reflux disease and the applicant was granted a disability pension at 30 % of the general rate, with effect from 2 July 2001. The applicant applied for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the 25 September 2003 limiting his claim to generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Larkin of counsel, instructed by Williams Winter Solicitors, and the respondent by Mr G. Purcell, of counsel. The Tribunal had before it the s 37 documents (the T-documents) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 which were accepted into evidence as Exhibit R1. The applicant tendered statements dated 25 September 2003 (Exhibit A1) and 17 September 2004 (Exhibit A2). The respondent tendered the following documents:
·     Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibit R2)
·     Transcript of the VRB Hearing of 3 April 2003 (Exhibit R3)
·     Medical Records of Dr Labrooy (Exhibit R4)
·     Medical File from Medical One Frankston (Exhibit R5)
·     Applicant’s psychological profile on joining the Navy, dated 16 April 1968 (Exhibit R6)
·     Applicant’s Personnel file whilst in the Navy (Exhibit R7)
·     Applicant’s ANZ Bank Personnel file (Exhibit R8)
·     Report of Captain J. McDonald of WriteWay Research Service, dated 21 May 2004 (Exhibit R9)
·     …
·     Report of Captain J. McDonald of WriteWay Research Service, dated 31 May 2004 (Exhibit R14)
·     Report of Captain J. McDonald of WriteWay Research Service, dated 23 August 2004 (Exhibit R15)
·     Report of Captain J. McDonald of WriteWay Research Service, dated 4 October 2004 (Exhibit R16)
·     Letter from Mr R. Fergusson, Advocate of the Respondent, to Dr L. Walton, dated 23 September 2004 (Exhibit R17)

The applicant, Mr W. Peterson and Captain McDonald gave evidence at…

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 Peterson and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Peterson and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1370
Case: [2004] AATA 1370
Decision Date: 21 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Peterson and Repatriation Commission, the dispute centred around the eligibility of Mr. Peterson for benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, specifically regarding his claim for compensation related to mild generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Mr. Peterson, a veteran, argued that his GAD was caused by both alcohol abuse and severe psycho-social stressors, some of which occurred during his operational service and others during his eligible service. The matter was adjudicated in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was determining the precise date of onset of Mr. Peterson's GAD, as this would establish whether the condition was linked to his service and therefore compensable. The court had to discern whether the anxiety disorder stemmed from stressors experienced during his operational service or if it was more attributable to stressors occurring after his service ended. Another key issue was whether the anxiety disorder was related to alcohol abuse, which could affect the compensability of the condition.

The court examined relevant case law, including White v Repatriation Commission and Repatriation Commission v Deledio, to interpret the applicable legislation and principles. It found that the anxiety disorder was significantly influenced by alcohol abuse, which was not service-related. The court also considered the principle from Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission, which emphasised the need for a direct link between the claimed condition and service stressors. Ultimately, the court concluded that the stressors occurring during Mr. Peterson's eligible service were not the primary cause of his anxiety disorder, and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits he sought.

The court's decision was based on the lack of a direct causal link between the stressors during eligible service and Mr. Peterson's GAD, as well as the significant role of alcohol abuse in the onset and exacerbation of the disorder. Consequently, the Federal Court dismissed Mr. Peterson's claim for compensation.

Orders