Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 58
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/2230
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re IAN PICKERING Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Brigadier C. Emert (Retd), Member
Dr K. J. Breen, MemberDate4 February 2011
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The decision under review is set aside and in its place the Tribunal decides that Mr Pickering’s psychiatric conditions are properly diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depressive disorder; and that the PTSD is war-caused.
.................[signed].....................
Member
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – operational service in Vietnam – anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, erectile dysfunction, ischaemic heart disease, unilateral edema of left eye – diagnosis of psychiatric conditions – PTSD, depressive disorder – whether psychiatric conditions war-caused – four stages of Deledio reasoning ‑ hypothesis connecting conditions with operational service ‑ Statements of Principles ‑ not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that PTSD not war-caused – decision set aside – PTSD war-caused.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120, 120A, 196A, 196B
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Gerzina v Repatriation Commission (2003) 79 ALD 400
Gerzina v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCAFC 96
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 293
Hunter v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 145
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 Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
REASONS FOR DECISION
4 February 2011 Brigadier C. Emert (Retd), Member
Dr K. J. Breen, Member1. Mr Ian Grey Pickering, the veteran, was born in 1941. He served in the Australian Army from 18 September 1958 to 27 February 1981. His Army service included two periods in Vietnam, the first from 15 April 1966 to 1 May 1967, and the second from 1 August to 13 August 1972.
2. During his first period in Vietnam, Mr Pickering was initially located in Saigon as an operator in a communications centre. After approximately three months, Mr Pickering was transferred to Vung Tau, where he was a shift leader in a communications centre. During his second tour of duty, Mr Pickering served as a communicator on board the Army ship, MV John Monash. The Repatriation Commission (the Commission) accepted both periods of service as comprising operational service, in accordance with the provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (the Act).
3. Mr Pickering contends that during his operational service he experienced a number of incidents which caused him considerable stress. They were:
(a)While walking in the countryside away from Saigon, local villagers warned Mr Pickering and his two companions to move away from their village. Mr Pickering assumed the reason was the presence of Viet Cong. He was concerned about the risk of the Viet Cong attacking him, until they were a safe distance from the village. (the village incident)
(b)While walking through an orchard some distance from Saigon, a US helicopter flew towards Mr Pickering, hovered overhead with the door gunner pointing his…
Continue reading Pickering and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pickering and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 58
- Case
- [2011] AATA 58
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The AAT meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented regarding the connection between Mr Pickering's service and his psychiatric conditions. It assessed whether there was a hypothesis that satisfactorily linked the conditions to his operational service. The Tribunal examined the evidence concerning Mr Pickering's symptoms and diagnoses, including anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, erectile dysfunction, ischaemic heart disease, and unilateral edema of the left eye. The AAT concluded that the evidence supported a diagnosis of PTSD and depressive disorder, rather than the initially posited anxiety disorder. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Repatriation Commission had not met the burden of proof to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the PTSD was not war-caused.
Consequently, the AAT set aside the original decision of the Repatriation Commission. It determined that Mr Pickering's psychiatric conditions were correctly diagnosed as PTSD and depressive disorder, and that the PTSD was indeed war-caused. This decision affirmed the Tribunal's role in re-evaluating the evidence and applying the appropriate legal standards to reach a just outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is set aside and in its place the Tribunal decides that Mr Pickering’s psychiatric conditions are properly diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depressive disorder; and that the PTSD is war-caused.
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.