Pike and Repatriation Commission

Case [2008] AATA 235

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 235

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2007/56

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re ALLAN PIKE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member

Date27 March 2008

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................................

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – disability pension – operational service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – repealed Statement of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions ––  anxiety disorder, panic disorder and alcohol dependence diagnosed – severe psychosocial stressor and experiencing a severe stressor – reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised – no clinical onset of anxiety disorder, panic disorder or alcohol dependence within two years - conditions not war-caused – decision affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 120, 120A

Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363; [2003] FCAFC 136
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Keeley v Repatriation Commission (2001) 60 ALD 401; [2000] FCA 532
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 134 FCR 392; [2003] FCAFC 300
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420; [2003] FCAFC 160
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331; [2002] FCAFC 398
Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 433

REASONS FOR DECISION

27 March 2008 Mr RG Kenny, Member      

Background

1. Allan Pike served in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) from 4 July 1963 until 7 February 1972. On 19 March 2004, he lodged with the Repatriation Commission, in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), a claim for a disability pension for “general anxiety disorder” which he contended was related to his RAN service.  On 26 May 2004, the respondent accepted that Mr Pike suffered from anxiety disorder but determined that the condition was not related to his service.  On 1 December 2006, the Veterans’ Review Board (the Board) affirmed the decision and Mr Pike seeks further review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Service and Standard of Proof

2. During his RAN service, Mr Pike rendered eligible war service in the form of operational service as provided for in s 7 and s 6C, respectively, of the Act from 25 April 1966 until 6 May 1966, from 30 May 1966 until 9 June 1966 and from 15 September 1969 until 11 April 1970. Of relevance to this matter is the last of those periods when Mr Pike was serving on HMAS Vendetta.

3. The standard of proof for determining diagnostic matters under the Act is provided for in s 120(4) thereof and this requires that such matters be determined to the Tribunal’s reasonable satisfaction[1].…

Continue reading Pike and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pike and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 235
Case
[2008] AATA 235
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pike and Repatriation Commission involves an application for a disability pension by the appellant, a former member of the Royal Australian Navy, who contends that his psychiatric conditions—anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and alcohol dependence—are related to his service. The dispute was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the decision was subsequently reviewed in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant argued that his conditions were war-caused, warranting compensation under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

The legal issues central to the case revolve around the applicability of repealed Statements of Principles to the appellant's claims, the appropriate diagnosis of his psychiatric conditions, and whether there was a reasonable hypothesis that these conditions were connected to his service. Critical to the decision was the determination of whether the appellant's conditions had a clinical onset within the two-year period post-service, as stipulated by the Act. The court had to consider whether the appellant's conditions met the criteria for being war-caused and if there was a reasonable hypothesis linking the psychiatric conditions to his service.

The court examined the evidence and expert opinions presented, ultimately affirming the Tribunal's decision that the appellant's conditions did not meet the statutory criteria for war-causation. The court found that there was no reasonable hypothesis connecting the appellant's psychiatric conditions to his service, particularly given the absence of a clinical onset within the two-year period post-service. The repealed Statements of Principles were also deemed inapplicable to the appellant's case. The Federal Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant's conditions were not war-caused, thereby affirming the decision under review.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the decision of the Tribunal.

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.