Rankin and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 341

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 341
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/588

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re BRIAN RANKIN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr RG Kenny, Member
Date10 April 2006
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review

...........[Sgd]..........
RG Kenny
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – operational service with Royal Australian Air Force – post traumatic stress disorder – no diagnosis of condition – causation considered - application of Statements of Principles – reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised – even if diagnosed, condition not war-caused – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 14, 120, 120A
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 424
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Ballantyne and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1186
Allan and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 526
REASONS FOR DECISION

10 April 2006 Mr RG Kenny, Member

Background
1. Brian Rankin (the applicant) served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 15 February 1961 to 20 March 1981. His service included periods at Ubon in Thailand and, on 26 November 2001, he lodged a claim for acceptance by the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) of “emotional behaviour” as being related to his service. That claim was made in accordance with section 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) and, on 1 August 2002, the respondent determined that, though Mr Rankin suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, this was unrelated to his service. That decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 15 June 2004 and, on 30 July 2004, Mr Rankin sought review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Hearing
2. Mr Rankin was represented by Mr R Clutterbuck of counsel and the respondent was represented by Mr M Smith. The hearing commenced on 12 August 2005 when it was adjourned at Mr Clutterbuck’s request in order for further material to be accessed by him. It was completed on 24 March 2006 and the material before the Tribunal included the documents prepared in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
Issues and Legislation
3. It is common ground that Mr Rankin served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 1961 to 1981 and that he completed a period of eligible war service in the form of operational service as those terms are defined in the Act. This was in Ubon, Thailand, from 2 June 1966 until 25 August 1966 and from 20 April 1967 until 15 June 1967. He also completed a period of defence service from 7 December 1972 until his discharge but no contentions were raised in respect of this part of Mr Rankin’s service. The issues for determination are whether Mr Rankin…

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 Rankin and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Rankin and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 341
Case: [2006] AATA 341
Decision Date: 10 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal involved an applicant seeking a disability pension from the Repatriation Commission due to alleged post-traumatic stress disorder arising from their operational service with the Royal Australian Air Force. The key issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's condition, if diagnosed, could be considered to have been caused by their service. Despite the applicant raising a reasonable hypothesis about the relationship between the condition and their service, the Tribunal needed to determine if it was indeed war-caused under the relevant legislative provisions.

The Tribunal considered the applicable legislative framework, specifically the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, and examined previous cases that addressed the causation requirement for pension entitlements. The Tribunal had to determine if the applicant’s condition, even if diagnosed, met the criteria of being related to their military service. It relied on authorities such as Fogarty v Repatriation Commission, Woodward v Repatriation Commission, and Deledio v Repatriation Commission to assess the causation element in light of the Statements of Principles regarding mental health conditions.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that although the applicant had raised a reasonable hypothesis linking their condition to service, it was not sufficient to establish the necessary causal link required by the legislation. The Tribunal concluded that the condition, even if diagnosed, was not war-caused. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision of the Repatriation Commission denying the pension application. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the required causal link between the applicant's service and the condition in question.

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.