Repatriation Commission v Brown

[1990] FCA 441

Re: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
And: DAVID WALTER BROWN
No. G672 of 1990
FED No. 441
Administrative Law
12 AAR 253

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Hill J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Veterans' Entitlements - Appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal - whether respondent's "ground down" teeth constituted an "injury" under Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 - meaning of "injury" - whether Tribunal had sufficient evidence before it to find that respondent was required to undergo treatment consisting of grinding down the teeth - whether Tribunal had erred in law in finding necessary causal consequence between respondent's injury and defence service as required by s.70(5)(a) of the Act.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986: ss.5(1), 7, 70, 81, 85.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 24:8:1990

Counsel and Solicitors Ms M Beazley QC and
for Applicant: Ms R M Henderson instructed

by the Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel and Solicitors Mr M Walton instructed by for Respondent: Messrs Grahame Goldberg Partners

ORDER

The appeal be allowed.

There be no order as to costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

The respondent, David Walter Brown, was fifteen years of age when he received a blow to his upper right central incisor. That blow led to a long history of dental discomfort for him which culminated in the removal of the tooth in 1974. Within the first year after the initial blow, the tooth had abscessed and probably there was an attempted root filling performed at that time.

1. In 1966, while the respondent was then on national service, the tooth was again damaged, this time in a football match. Further root canal therapy was apparently performed but there was subsequent deterioration. Meanwhile, the respondent served two periods of service in Vietnam. The first period commenced in March 1968 and continued until March 1969; the second commenced in April 1970 and continued until March 1971. He remained a serviceman until his discharge from the army on 25 April, 1986.

2. In 1972 a dental officer noted that he had made a "PJC on gold dowel" in August 1971 without interfering with the apical part of the old canal filling. He stated that there was at the time of examination "tenderness to percussion". There was no explanation in the evidence as to what was meant by a "PJC on gold dowel", but it may be assumed that it represented an appropriate dental procedure. The 1972 report continued:
   

"At present there is chronic infection in the bone around the apex with radiographic obliteration of the canal in the apical third which has not received the root filling material"

1. In 1974, while the respondent was serving in Papua New Guinea, the tooth was extracted by an army dental officer and a bridge was fitted. It is not suggested that the dental work then performed was in any way incompetent. As part of the overall treatment which included the construction and fitting of a bridge, the two…