PIANTA and REPATRIATION COMMISSION - [2009] AATA 21

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 21
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/5959

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re PHILLIP PIANTA

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr P A Staer, Member
Date14 January 2009
PlacePerth

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review

..........[sgd S D Hotop]........
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – applicant rendered defence service in Royal Australian Air Force from August 1973 to August 1994 – applicant contracted mental disorder in or about 1992 – diagnosis – delusional disorder or paranoid schizophrenia – appropriate diagnosis is paranoid schizophrenia – Statement of Principles (SoP) – inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for schizophrenia – not related to defence service – SoP does not uphold contention that paranoid schizophrenia on balance of probabilities connected with defence service – paranoid schizophrenia not defence-caused – decision under review affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), s 5D(1), s 70, s 120(4), s120B and s 196B
Statement of Principles concerning Schizophrenia (Instrument No 133 of 1996)
Brew v Repatriation Commission (1999) 56 ALD 403
Brew v Repatriation Commission (1999) 94 FCR 80
Repatriation Commission v Money (2008) 100 ALD 527
REASONS FOR DECISION

14 January 2009 Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr P A Staer, Member

Introduction
1.       Phillip Pianta (“the applicant”) served in the Royal Australian Air Force (“RAAF”) from 27 August 1973 to 9 August 1994. That period of service constitutes “defence service” (other than “hazardous service”) for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“VE Act”).
2. On 9 March 1994 the applicant lodged with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“DVA”) a claim for pension and medical treatment in respect of a condition described as “psychiatric disorder”. On 26 August 1994, however, a delegate of the Repatriation Commission (“respondent”) made a determination that the applicant was suffering from “paranoid psychosis” but that that condition was not “defence-caused” for the purposes of the VE Act. The delegate, accordingly, refused the applicant’s claim.
3. On 15 May 1995 a delegate of Comcare made a determination that the Department of Defence was liable under s14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) to pay compensation under that Act to the applicant in respect of an injury described as “an aggravation of a disease, namely, Delusional Disorder of Persecutory Type”.
4. On 24 March 2005 the applicant lodged with the DVA a claim for disability pension under the VE Act in respect of a condition was described as “paranoid psychosis”.
5. On 8 September 2005 a delegate of the respondent decided that the applicant was suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia” but that that condition was not related to his RAAF service and, accordingly, was not defence-caused for the purposes of the VE Act. The applicant’s claim for disability pension was, therefore, refused.
6.       On 5 September 2007 the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) affirmed the respondent’s decision of 8 September 2005.
7.       On…

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 PIANTA and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Details

AGLC: PIANTA and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2009] AATA 21
Case: [2009] AATA 21
Decision Date: 14 January 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pianta, sought a disability pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Pianta served in the Royal Australian Air Force from August 1973 to August 1994 and was diagnosed with a mental disorder in or about 1992, specifically delusional disorder or paranoid schizophrenia. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the paranoid schizophrenia was related to Pianta's defence service, as the appropriate diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia, and whether the Statement of Principles concerning Schizophrenia upheld the contention that the condition was connected with defence service. The Statement of Principles did not uphold the contention that the paranoid schizophrenia was on balance of probabilities connected with defence service.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and submissions to determine the connection between Pianta's condition and his defence service. The Tribunal noted that the Statement of Principles did not provide a causal link between the paranoid schizophrenia and the applicant's defence service. Pianta argued that the inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for schizophrenia was related to his defence service, but the Tribunal found that this did not establish a connection between the condition and the service. The Tribunal concluded that the paranoid schizophrenia was not defence-caused.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Statement of Principles did not uphold the contention that the paranoid schizophrenia was connected with defence service. The Tribunal held that Pianta's paranoid schizophrenia was not defence-caused, and therefore, he was not entitled to a disability pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence and submissions, and the applicable legal framework, including the relevant provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Statement of Principles concerning Schizophrenia. The decision was affirmed, and Pianta's application for a disability pension was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal 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.