Riddel and Repatriation Commission

[2004] AATA 1279

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1279

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/743

VETERANS APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		JAMES RIDDEL

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr EK Christie, Member

Date2 December 2004  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...................[Sgd]........................

EK Christie
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements- anxiety disorder (specific phobia) – alcohol abuse – alcohol disorder- clinical onset of symptoms – reasonable hypothesis - proof of facts necessary to support the  hypothesis or which are inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s120

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
Repatriation Commission v Whetton (1991) 24 ALD 33
Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 41 ALD 212
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 518, (1987) 12 ALD 389
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 47 ALD 481
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Dixon v Repatriation Commission (1999) 29 AAR 235, (1999) 59 ALD 315
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564, (1993) 30 ALD 1
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334, (2003) 74 ALD 366

Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 160 ALR 17, (1998) 52 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries [1939] 3 All ER 722

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 December 2004 Dr EK Christie, Member

1.      This is an application by James Riddel to review a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (the “VRB”) made on 1 August 2003 in which the VRB decided to:

“(a)AFFIRM the decision under review in respect of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, hypertension and sleep apnoea.  This means that the Repatriation Commission decision in relation to these conditions is unchanged.

(b)AFFIRM the decision under review in respect of anxiety disorder.  This means that the Repatriation Commission decision in relation to this condition is unchanged.”

2.      With respect to the “Generalised Anxiety Disorder’ Anxiety Disorder SoP” and specifically Factor 5a(ii):

“(a)for generalised anxiety disorder or anxiety disorder not otherwise specified, only

…

(ii)experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder”

where “severe pscyhosocial stressor” is defined to mean:

“…an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault (including sexual assault), major illness or injury, experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems,”

the VRB concluded that it was unable to find that Mr Riddel had experienced a severe psychosocial stressor and that :

“In the Board’s view, the requirements of factor 5(a)(ii) are…