Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 602
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/6124
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re NEVILLE WAYNE PHILLIPS Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop Date30 August 2011
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal:
· varies the decision under review by:
- varying the diagnosis of the applicant’s psychiatric condition from post traumatic stress disorder to generalised anxiety disorder; and
- determining that the applicant has also suffered alcohol dependence but that that condition is not a war-caused injury or a war-caused disease for the purposes of Part II of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth);
· in all other respects, affirms the decision under review.
..........(sgd S D Hotop)...........
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – applicant served in Royal Australian Navy (RAN) – applicant’s RAN service included operational service – applicant claimed post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and hypertension war-caused – applicant has not suffered PTSD – applicant has suffered generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), alcohol dependence, IBS and hypertension (diseases) – Statements of Principles (SoPs) – SoPs do not uphold contention that applicant’s diseases connected with operational service – material before Tribunal does not raise reasonable hypothesis connecting applicant’s diseases with operational service – applicant’s diseases not war-caused – decision under review varied
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), s 5D(1), s 7(1), s 9(1), s 120, s 120A and s 196B
Statement of Principles concerning alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse No 1 of 2009.
Statement of Principles concerning alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, Instrument No 76 of 1998
Statement of Principles concerning anxiety disorder No 101 of 2007 (as amended by Instrument No 42 of 2010 and by Instrument No 15 of 2011)
Statement of Principles concerning anxiety disorder, Instrument No 1 of 2000
Statement of Principles concerning hypertension, Instrument No 35 of 2003 (as amended by Instrument No 3 of 2004 and by Statement of Principles concerning hypertension No 11 of 2008)
Statement of Principles concerning irritable bowel syndrome No 27 of 2011
Statement of Principles concerning irritable bowel syndrome, Instrument No 103 of 1996
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Border v Repatriation Commission (No 2) (2010) 191 FCR 163
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 188 ALR 756
Byrne v Repatriation Commission (2007) 97 ALD 359
Collins v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2007) 96 ALD 536
Hunter v Repatriation Commission (2010) 114 ALD 89
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 August 2011 Deputy President S D Hotop Introduction
1.Neville Wayne Philips (“the applicant”), who was born in November 1949, served in the Royal Australian Navy (“RAN”) from April 1966…
Continue reading PHILLIPS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- PHILLIPS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2011] AATA 602
- Case
- [2011] AATA 602
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues that the Tribunal needed to resolve included whether the applicant's conditions were indeed war-caused, and if the Statements of Principles (SoPs) concerning these conditions could reasonably connect them to the applicant's military service. The Tribunal had to examine the evidence and the SoPs to determine if the applicant's conditions met the criteria for war-caused injuries or diseases as defined in the Act.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while the applicant did not suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, they did suffer from generalised anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence, irritable bowel syndrome, and hypertension. The Tribunal concluded that the material before it did not raise a reasonable hypothesis that the applicant's conditions were connected to their operational service. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that these conditions were not war-caused. Consequently, the Tribunal varied the decision under review to reflect the correct diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder and recognised alcohol dependence, but ruled that this condition was not war-caused.
The final orders of the Tribunal were to vary the decision under review by changing the diagnosis from post traumatic stress disorder to generalised anxiety disorder and recognising alcohol dependence, but affirming that this condition was not war-caused. In all other respects, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal:
· varies the decision under review by:
- varying the diagnosis of the applicant’s psychiatric condition from post traumatic stress disorder to generalised anxiety disorder; and
- determining that the applicant has also suffered alcohol dependence but that that condition is not a war-caused injury or a war-caused disease for the purposes of Part II of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth);
· in all other respects, 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.