Pringle and Repatriation Commission - [2000] AATA 463

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 463

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1999/332

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION          )
           Re      RONALD MELVILLE PRINGLE
  Applicant
           And    REPATRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

Date 9 June 2000
Place Sydney

Decision      1) The decision of the Repatriation Commission as affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board to find that Mr Ronald Melville Pringle's ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation are not war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 is affirmed. 2) The decision to refuse the disability pension at the Special Rate pursuant to section 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 is set aside, and the Tribunal finds that the disability pension is payable at the Special Rate on and from 5 November 1996.
  ..............................................
  Ms G Ettinger
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Veterans affairs - whether ischaemic heart disease war-caused – applying Keeley in consideration of SoPs current at time of original decision.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 24, 120B(1), 120(4)
Repatriation Medical Authority Statement of Principles ("SoP") No.141of 1996 concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease
Repatriation Medical Authority Statement of Principles ("SoP") No.10 of 1996 concerning Atrial Fibrillation

Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532
Pringle and Repatriation Commission (AAT 13250, 4 September 1998)
Sheehy v Repatriation Commission (1996) 66 FCR 569
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
Birtles v Repatriation Commission (1991) 33 FCR 290

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 June 2000 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

The decision under review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), was the decision of the Veterans' Review Board of 24 November 1998 (T22) which affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission of 30 September 1997 (T16) in not accepting Mr Ronald Melville Pringle's ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation as war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Veterans' Review Board set aside the decision under review in relation to lumbar spondylosis and substituted the following decision:
"(i)that that condition (lumbar spondylosis) was war-caused as defined in section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act);
(ii)that the Commonwealth of Australia is liable pursuant to section 13 of the Act to pay pension for any incapacity arising from that condition from and including 5 November 1996; and
(iii)to remit the matter to the Repatriation Commission for assessment of the rate (if any) at which pension is to be paid."
The applicant was represented at the Tribunal by Mr C Colborne of counsel and the respondent Repatriation Commission by its advocate, Mr P Godwin.
Oral evidence was given by the applicant, Mr Ronald Melville Pringle, Dr M Neaverson, consultant physician and cardiologist, Dr G Miller, consultant physician, and Dr D Richards Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Sydney University.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The issues before the Tribunal were:
(a)whether the applicant's claimed condition of ischaemic heart disease satisfied the Statement of Principles No.141 concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease and whether the condition was thus war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans'…

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 Pringle and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Pringle and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 463
Case: [2000] AATA 463
Decision Date: 9 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pringle and Repatriation Commission involved Mr Ronald Melville Pringle who sought a determination from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding his eligibility for a disability pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Specifically, Mr Pringle argued that his ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation were war-caused, thereby making him eligible for a pension at the Special Rate. The Tribunal reviewed the decisions of both the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board, which had previously denied his claim for a pension on the basis that his conditions were not war-caused. The primary legal issues before the Tribunal included whether Mr Pringle's conditions satisfied the relevant Statements of Principles (SoP) concerning ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation, and whether these conditions rendered him incapable of undertaking remunerative work. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine if his war-caused disabilities made him eligible for a disability pension at the Special Rate and, if so, from what date.

The Tribunal considered the relevant SoPs in force at the time of the primary decision, as per the Full Federal Court decision in Repatriation Commission v Keeley. The Tribunal also examined the medical evidence provided by several physicians, including Dr G Miller, Dr M Neaverson, and Dr D Richards, as well as clinical notes and other documents. The evidence was assessed to determine whether Mr Pringle's ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation met the criteria set out in the applicable SoPs. Furthermore, the Tribunal evaluated the extent to which Mr Pringle's disabilities affected his ability to work, considering his employment history and the nature of his work post-service.

In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that although Mr Pringle did not satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that his ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation were war-caused, he was nonetheless eligible for a pension at the Special Rate. The Tribunal set aside the previous decisions of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board and affirmed that Mr Pringle was entitled to a disability pension at the Special Rate, effective from 5 November 1996. The Tribunal found that Mr Pringle's war-caused disabilities, including his lumbar spondylosis, rendered him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria for the pension.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Pursuant to the recent decision of the Full Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532 the correct SoP to be applied in considering whether a particular veteran's claimed condition is war-caused, is the SoP which was in force at the time of the primary decision. The relevant SoPs in this case are as follows: Instrument No.141 of 1996 concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease, and Instrument No.10 of 1996 concerning Atrial Fibrillation. I have in this case also perused the later SoPs concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease and Atrial Fibrillation. I did not find, even if they could be applied, that any of the later SoPs would either alter my decision or act to Mr Pringle's advantage or detriment. I note also that the decision of Keeley (supra) is on appeal to the Full Federal Court.EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL The Tribunal had before it documents ("the T-documents") lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the AAT Act") and the following exhibits:ITEM DATE NAME Medical report of Dr G Miller 29 September 1999 Exhibit A1 Medical report of Dr M Neaverson 1 March 2000 Exhibit A2 Medical report of Associate Professor D Richards 15 February 2000 Exhibit R2 Medical report of Dr M Burns 11 June 1999 Exhibit R3 Clinical notes of Dr J Lahood 4 September 1979 to 11 May 1999 Exhibit R4 Clinical notes of Dr D Madew 13 July 1978 to 26 March 1979 Exhibit R5 Australian Taxation Office Income Tax Returns of Mr R Pringle 1992 Exhibit R6 Letter from Dr J Lahood to Dr M A Neaverson 11 December 1995 Exhibit R7 EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT MR RONALD MELVILLE PRINGLE Mr Pringle, whose date of birth was 2 July 1926, gave oral evidence before the Tribunal. The veteran told the Tribunal that he completed school education to 14 or 15 years of age and attended commercial evening school. He said that he worked at a stationer's as a junior and later at a warehouse. He then joined a company as a trainee fitter/machinist, followed by enlistment in the Royal Australian Air Force ("RAAF") on 25 July 1944 at age 18. The Tribunal noted that the veteran served from 25 July 1944 to 10 October 1946, and that his service constituted eligible service as defined in the Act. Mr Pringle gave evidence of training to be a flight mechanic, which led to guard duty and servicing of aircraft engines. He described an accident in Parkes where an engine fell on his leg in July 1945. Some of these injuries were dealt with in the decision Pringle and Repatriation Commission (AAT 13250, 4 September 1998), (T22). Mr Pringle gave evidence that after leaving the RAAF he was restless. He worked for approximately 18 months servicing aircraft parts, and then worked for "Lowes", a Sydney retailer of men's clothing. The applicant said that he was involved in sales, and remained at Lowes from 1950 to 1966, rising to store manager, and becoming group shirt buyer by 1967. From October 1967, endeavouring to be away from home less, he and his wife moved into managing hotels with the Koala group. Mr Curtis said that they became known as "trouble shooters" and were sent to areas where the group's hotels had problems. Once again this involved a lot of moving around, and in approximately July 1972, the couple moved to an area near Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory where they had what was described as a big complex. During this time the Pringle's worked with the Aboriginal community, and operated a general store, an aircraft refuelling business and various social clubs. They also operated a garage which they left at the end of 1993.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I find therefore that notwithstanding Mr Pringle did not satisfy me on the balance on probabilities, and with reference to the relevant SoPs that any ischaemic heart disease or atrial fibrillation he may suffer is war-caused, he is eligible for pension at the Special Rate on and from 5 November 1996.DECISION The decision of the Repatriation Commission as affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board to find that Mr Ronald Melville Pringle's ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation are not war-caused is affirmed. The decision to refuse the disability pension at the Special Rate is set aside, and the Tribunal finds that the disability pension is payable to Mr Ronald Melville Pringle at the Special Rate on and from 5 November 1996. I certify that the 107 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms G Ettinger, Senior MemberSigned: ..................................................................................... AssociateDate of Hearing 9 March 2000 – Written ClosingSubmissions 30 March 2000 Date of Decision 9 June 2000Counsel for the Applicant Mr C ColborneSolicitor for the Applicant Ms G Peres De CostaCounsel for the Respondent N/AAdvocate for the Respondent Mr P Godwin The decision under review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), was the decision of the Veterans' Review Board of 24 November 1998 (T22) which affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission of 30 September 1997 (T16) in not accepting Mr Ronald Melville Pringle's ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation as war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Veterans' Review Board set aside the decision under review in relation to lumbar spondylosis and substituted the following decision:"(i)that that condition (lumbar spondylosis) was war-caused as defined in section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act);(ii)that the Commonwealth of Australia is liable pursuant to section 13 of the Act to pay pension for any incapacity arising from that condition from and including 5 November 1996; and(iii)to remit the matter to the Repatriation Commission for assessment of the rate (if any) at which pension is to be paid." The applicant was represented at the Tribunal by Mr C Colborne of counsel and the respondent Repatriation Commission by its advocate, Mr P Godwin. Oral evidence was given by the applicant, Mr Ronald Melville Pringle, Dr M Neaverson, consultant physician and cardiologist, Dr G Miller, consultant physician, and Dr D Richards Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Sydney University.ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL The issues before the Tribunal were: (a)whether the applicant's claimed condition of ischaemic heart disease satisfied the Statement of Principles No.141 concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease and whether the condition was thus war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986;(b)whether the applicant's claimed condition of atrial fibrillation satisfied the Statement of Principles No.10 concerning Atrial Fibrillation and whether the condition was thus war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986;(c)whether the applicant's war-caused disabilities alone rendered him incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week; and whether his war-caused disabilities prevented him from continuing his work at Pakrite where he had been employed for some 12 years;(d)whether the applicant is eligible for a disability pension at the Special Rate pursuant to section 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; and(e)and if so, from what date.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.