Reardon and Repatriation Commission - [2005] AATA 1190

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1190
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2004/1224

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re JAMES REARDON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Ms R Hunt
Member Dr J Campbell
Date5 December 2005
PlaceSydney

Decision
The tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................................
Ms R Hunt
Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – Eligible war service – Generalised Anxiety Disorder – Claim that condition related to service – Conflicting diagnoses – No disorder found - Decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, ss 120(1), (3) and 120B
CASES
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
RepatriationCommission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 74 ALD 366
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140
Lee and Repatriation Commission (1986) 11 ALD 56
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 12 ALD 798
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420
Re Woodward and Repatriation Commission (2002) 72 ALD 288
Re Slattery andRepatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 90
Statement of Principles concerning GAD (Instrument No 2 of 2000)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), 4^th Ed
REASONS FOR DECISION

5 December 2005 Senior Member Ms R Hunt
Member Dr J Campbell

SUMMARY
1.        Mr James Reardon, the applicant, is seeking review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) rejecting his claim for a pension in respect to the condition of Generalised Anxiety Disorder. After considering the material before us, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Reardon does not suffer from this disorder. This means that Mr Reardon’s claim has been unsuccessful and the decision under review is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
2.        Mr Reardon was born in Liverpool, in England. He was living in Liverpool at the time of the German blitz of Liverpool in May 1941. Mr Reardon recalls that he and his family had to take shelter in a refuge for 10 to 12 days. He migrated to Young in NSW, Australia, in 1948, at the age of 17, under the sponsorship of the Big Brother movement. He met his wife, Dorothy Reardon, in Young before he left to serve in the Korean war and married her in May 1952, at the age of 21. They have been married for over 50 years.
3.        Mr Reardon joined the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) at the age of 21. He served in the RAN from 20 August 1952 until 19 August 1958. His eligible war-service, which is also operational service, covers three periods as follows:

22 October 1953 to 2 June 1954 HMAS Sydney Korea

27 October 1954 to 3 December 1954 HMAS Vengeance Korea

21 September 1956 to 12 October 1956 HMAS Melbourne Far East Strategic Reserve

ISSUE
4.        The main issue before the tribunal is whether Mr Reardon suffers from a war-caused anxiety disorder. We have first considered…

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 Reardon and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Reardon and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1190
Case: [2005] AATA 1190
Decision Date: 5 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reardon was before the court in relation to a dispute over the eligibility of his war service for certain veterans’ entitlements. The respondent, Repatriation Commission, had denied Reardon’s claim that his Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) was related to his military service, and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits. Reardon sought to have the Commission’s decision reviewed and overturned. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether Reardon’s GAD was related to his military service. The court had to consider the medical evidence provided by the parties and determine if the condition was a result of the service. The court also had to address the conflicting diagnoses and determine the weight to be given to each medical opinion. Furthermore, the court had to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence presented.

The tribunal found that the evidence did not support a finding that Reardon’s GAD was related to his service. The court considered the medical evidence and expert opinions and concluded that the condition was not service-related. The tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the disorder and the service. The tribunal also found that the conflicting diagnoses did not provide sufficient evidence to support Reardon’s claim. Ultimately, the tribunal affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission.

The tribunal affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission denying Reardon’s claim for veterans’ entitlements. The tribunal found that the evidence did not support a finding that Reardon’s GAD was related to his military service. The court held that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the disorder and the service. The tribunal also found that the conflicting diagnoses did not provide sufficient evidence to support Reardon’s claim.

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.

22 October 1953 to 2 June 1954	HMAS Sydney	Korea
27 October 1954 to 3 December 1954	HMAS Vengeance	Korea
21 September 1956 to 12 October 1956	HMAS Melbourne	Far East Strategic Reserve