Reardon and Repatriation Commission - [2003] AATA 622

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 622
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1115

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re JAMES REARDON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal REAR ADMIRAL A R HORTON
Date 26 June 2003
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed

[sgd] REAR ADMIRAL A R HORTON, MEMBER

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans entitlements – disability pension – whether applicant has anxiety disorder – RAN service – service in aircraft carriers – operational service - whether psychiatric condition has causal connection with service – whether SoP factor(s) met – reasonable hypothesis
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 sections 120,120A
Statement of Principles 1 of 2000
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 398
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1320
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Robertson and Repatriation Commission (AAT 12666, 2 March 1998)
REASONS FOR DECISION

26 June 2003 REAR ADMIRAL A R HORTON

1.      This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by James Reardon (“the Applicant”, ”the Veteran”).   The application seeks review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) dated 6 June 2002, which affirmed a decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the Respondent”) dated 23 January 2002 refusing a claim for Generalised Anxiety Disorder, and set aside the decision of the Respondent in respect of pension, substituting its decision that pension was to be assessed at 60% of the General Rate. The latter decision is not an issue before the Tribunal.
2.      At the hearing before the Tribunal on 7 May 2003, Mr Reardon was represented by Mr B Winship of Counsel. Mr J Marsh, Senior Advocate, represented the Respondent. The Applicant gave oral evidence, and concurrent evidence was heard from Dr A Hordern and Dr R Haik, Psychiatrists.
3. The Tribunal had before it the documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T documents) and additional service documents (TD1). The Tribunal also took into evidence the following:
Exhibit A1     Report by Dr A Hordern dated 22 October 2002
Exhibit A2     Letter from Mrs Joyce Reardon dated 6 May 2003
Exhibit R1     Transcript of the VRB Hearing 6 June 2002
Exhibit R2     Clinical Notes by Dr P Teh, General Practitioner
Exhibit R3Report by Captain H A Josephs AM for Writeway Research Service dated 20 February 2003 and attachments
Exhibit R4Report by Dr R Haik dated 7 November 2002
ISSUES

4. On 10 October 2001, the Applicant lodged a claim for osteoporosis, stress/anxiety and left eye amblyopia. Osteoporosis was accepted and left eye amblyopia considered to be an invalid claim. Stress/anxiety was considered under the diagnosis of Generalised Anxiety Disorder and not accepted on the basis that the condition was not related to operational service. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent contended that the diagnostic criteria for generalised anxiety disorder was not met, and alternatively, Mr Reardon did not experience…

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 [2003] AATA 622
Case: [2003] AATA 622
Decision Date: 26 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Reardon and the Repatriation Commission contested the eligibility of the applicant for a disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The applicant, a former member of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), argued that he was entitled to a pension due to an anxiety disorder, which he claimed was caused by his service in aircraft carriers during his RAN tenure. The Commission disputed the applicant's claim, asserting that the anxiety disorder did not have a causal connection to his military service and therefore did not qualify as an operational psychiatric condition.

The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the applicant's anxiety disorder was indeed a psychiatric condition and, if so, whether it was causally connected to his service in the RAN. The court also needed to determine whether the condition met the criteria outlined in Statement of Principles 1 of 2000. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the applicant could establish a reasonable hypothesis that his psychiatric condition was caused by an event or events during his service, as required by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The court considered relevant precedents, including Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Lees v Repatriation Commission, Roncevich v Repatriation Commission, Stoddart v Repatriation Commission, and Robertson and Repatriation Commission.

The Federal Court examined the evidence presented and found that the applicant's anxiety disorder did not have a causal link to his service in the RAN. The court concluded that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable hypothesis connecting his psychiatric condition to his military service. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, denying the applicant's claim for a disability pension. The court relied on the lack of sufficient evidence to support the applicant's assertion that his anxiety disorder was a result of his service, and the absence of any relevant factor in the Statement of Principles 1 of 2000 that could substantiate his claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed

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.