Philip James Green v Repatriation Commission

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 40

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2005/100

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		PHILIP JAMES GREEN

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr KS Levy, Senior Member
Dr GJ Maynard, Member

Date30 January 2007  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

Senior Member

7.      The applicant currently suffers from anxiety and alcohol related conditions, which he attributes to his military service in Malaysia. 

Issues for Determination

8.      The issues for determination in this case are:

(i)Whether a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Anxiety Disorder (AD) together with Alcohol Dependence/Alcohol Abuse are appropriate diagnoses for the applicant’s psychiatric condition?

(ii)Whether any accepted diagnoses of psychiatric conditions are defence caused/service related within the meaning of the Act?

(iii)Whether any of the incidents experienced by the applicant during his service in Butterworth, Malaysia, could be regarded as a “severe stressor” or “severe psychosocial stressor”.

Legislative Framework

9.      It was submitted by both the applicant and the respondent that any psychiatric condition must be shown to be defence caused. The Tribunal agrees that the applicant has eligible defence service. The Tribunal also considers that the definition “injury/disease” within section 5D of the Act is also relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.  Section 120(4) deals with the standard of proof for non-operational service, and directs the Tribunal to decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction.  Section 120(4) is also affected by s 120B when applied to the present application.  Section 120B(3) directs the Tribunal to be reasonably satisfied that the injury/disease claimed is defence caused and amplifies the mechanism for being reasonably satisfied only if:

“Sect 120B(3)

…

(a)  the material before the Commission raises a connection between the injury, disease or death of the person and some particular service rendered by the person; and

(b)  there is in force:

(i)  a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B(3) or (12); or

(ii)  a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A(3);

that upholds the contention that the injury, disease or death of the person is, on the balance of probabilities, connected with that service.”

10.     Statements of Principles as referred to above are in force and were determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority under s 196B.  Therefore, the relevant standard of proof in this matter is on the balance of probabilities.  The parties were not in dispute about that standard of proof.

Evidence

11.     The following documents were admitted into evidence:

·Exhibit 1 T documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

·Exhibit 2       Letter from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs dated 26 April 2005

·Exhibit 3       Statement by Richard Green dated 29 April 2005

·Exhibit 4       Statement by Phillip Green dated 9 May 2005

·Exhibit 5       Report by Dr Gelb dated 27 July 2005

·Exhibit 6       Statement by Jayne Goodes dated 14 October 2005

·Exhibit 7       Statement by David Piggott dated 10 October 2005

·Exhibit 8       Statement by…