Robert Eddington and Repatriation Commission
[2012] AATA 807
•14 November 2012
[2012] AATA 807
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2011/3907
Re
Robert Eddington
APPLICANT
And
Repatriation Commission
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President R D Nicholson
Dr J Chaney, MemberDate 14 November 2012 Place Perth Decision Summary
Within 14 days of the publication of these reasons, each of the parties file with the Tribunal and serve on each other a draft of the orders they consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.
...(sgd) R D Nicholson...................
Deputy President R D Nicholson
VETERAN’S DISABILITY PENSION –application for review of decision of Veteran’s Review Board – conflict in expert evidence – alternative opinions favouring post-traumatic stress disorder or depressive disorder – overlap of symptoms - whether applicant’s condition alone met statutory requirements concerning remunerative earnings
Legislation
Veteran’s Entitlement Act 1986 s24
Cases
Secondary Materials
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President R D Nicholson
Dr J Chaney, Member14 November 2012
BACKGROUND
On 5 May 2008, the applicant applied for acceptance as war-caused of “stress” and “depression” and for increase in his rate of disability pension.
On 18 February 2009, a delegate of the Repatriation Commission determined that the applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder is war-caused and assessed the applicant’s disability pension at 80% of the General Rate with effect from 5 February 2008.
On 3 March 2009, the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision by the Veteran’s Review Board.
On 28 July 2011, the Board determined that the applicant’s disability pension was to continue at 20% of the General Rate inclusive of 5 April 2010 and at 70% of the General Rate with effect from 6 April 2010.
On 14 September 2011, the applicant applied for review of the Board’s decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
ISSUES
The issues before the Tribunal in this application are whether, on the material before it, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that:
(a)The applicant’s incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the applicant incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(b)The applicant is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the applicant was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his own account, that the applicant would not be suffering if the applicant were free of that incapacity.
RELEVANT LAW
The critical issue raised by the application is whether the Statements of Principle relating, on the one hand, to post-traumatic stress disorder or, on the other hand, depressive disorder are satisfied.
The requirements of Statement No 5 of 2008 for post-traumatic stress disorder are:
For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, “posttraumatic stress disorder” means a psychiatric condition meeting the following diagnostic criteria (derived from DSM-IV-TR):
the person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which:
the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others; and
the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror; and
(B) the traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in one or more the following ways:
recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions;
recurrent distressing dreams of the event;
acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (including a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur on awakening or when intoxicated);
intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event;
physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; and
(C) persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three or more of the following:
efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma;
efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma;
inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma;
markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities;
feeling of detachment or estrangement from others;
restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings);
sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span); and
(D) persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma) as indicated by two or more of the following:
difficulty falling or staying asleep:
irritability or outbursts of anger;
difficulty concentrating;
hypervigilance;
exaggerated startle response; and
duration of the disturbance (indicated by the relevant symptoms set out in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)) is more than one month; and
the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
The requirements of Statement No 27 of 2008 on depressive disorder are briefly:
(c)for the purposes of this Statement of Principles “depressive disorder” means a group of psychiatric conditions which are manifested by a dysphoric mood. The mood disturbance is prominent and persistent. This definition is limited to major depressive episode, recurrent major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, depressive disorder not otherwise specified, substance-induced mood disorder with depressive features, or mood disorder due to a general medical condition with depressive features, or with major depressive-like episodes.
FACTS
The Applicant was born on 4 June 1950.
The Applicant receives disability pension at 90% of the General Rate in respect of the following war-caused injuries and war-caused diseases:
Bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus
Post- traumatic stress disorder
Malignant neoplasm of the prostate
Erectile dysfunction
Alcohol abuse
Chronic bronchitis with COADThe following conditions have been determined not to be war-caused:
Smoking (no incapacity found)
Depressive disorderIn his initial application in April 2008, the Applicant stated that he had worked in retail until 2006 and that from 2007 to the present he had been the Shire President of the Shire of Shark Bay.
On 26 February 2009, the Applicant advised that, although elected, the position of Shire President is voluntary, not paid and that he averaged 16 to 20 hours per week attending meeting and civic functions.
EVIDENCE
The Respondent called evidence of three psychiatrists, Dr Kay, Dr Spear and Dr Mander.
EVIDENCE OF DR KAY
In the original report dated 6 February 2009 Dr Kay concluded as follows:
“In my opinion Mr Eddington is suffering from a chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder relating to witnessing the accidental discharging of a firearm and consequent severe wounding of a friend in Vietnam. He was horrified by it at the same time and has continued to re- experience it in the form of nightmares. He has marked avoidance phenomena, is not a member of the RSL and has stayed away from the company of other veterans until the past few years. Since socializing more with other veterans he has discovered that his symptoms have worsened. He is irritable, has difficulty sleeping and is hyper-vigilant.
In terms of an impairment rating as per GARP V criteria I believe the following apply:
Table 4.1
Subjective Distress
10
Very frequent symptoms of moderate distress with Mr Eddington often not being able to distract himself from the distress. Has difficulty sleeping every night, has frequent nightmares, is irritable and avoidant during the day.
Table 4.2
Manifest Distress
20
Mr Eddington’s demeanor is such that it draws attention to myself and comes across as an angry man.
Table 4.3
Functional Effects
3
Moderate interference with functioning in many everyday situations.
Table 4.4
Occupation
8
Mr Eddington cannot work and ceased working because of his PTSD.
Table 4.5
Domestic Situation
1
Occasional friction with family members.
Table 4.6
Social Interaction
3
Significant reduction in social interaction.
Table 4.7
Leisure Activities
3
Significant reduction in recreational activities.
Table 4.8
Current Therapy
5
Mr Eddington has a requirement for on -going psychiatric treatment and I have made a schedule of on-going appointments for him.
Impairment Rating
[10+20+8+5+3]= 46 points
In a report dated 24 October 2011 Dr Kay stated:
“1.There is a substantial difference between Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. Conceptually, PTSD is classified as an Anxiety Disorder and Major Depression is an Affective Disorder. In practical terms there is considerable overlap and it is unusual for a person with PTSD not to suffer from depression as well as also have anxiety symptoms. The single biggest difference between the two if them is the cause of PTSD i e and exposure to a life threatening stressor which is require for the diagnosis whilst an etiology for depression is not required. In clinical terms there is considerable overlap with the two disorders.
2.Lexapro is antidepressant medication and antidepressant medications are used in many conditions. Where someone is on an antidepressant medication it does not imply that they are suffering from depression per se. In Mr Eddington’s case I initially commenced him on Lexapro as an anti-irritability agent.
3.If I were to re-assess Mr Eddington now I doubt that I would give him a significantly different impairment rating. I understand that there is a considerable variance of opinion expressed on Mr Eddington from a number of my colleagues. My opinion that Mr Eddington is suffering from PTSD of at least moderate severity is unchanged”.
In evidence given by telephone Dr Kay said that he had not changed his views in relation to PTSD. He said, of course, there was a part played by the symptoms of depression but PTSD almost always involves some depressive and anxiety symptoms. Antidepressants were prescribed for both depressive disorders and PTSD. In his view the Lexapro which he had prescribed for the applicant had resulted in the applicant becoming less irritable. When he had first seen the applicant he regarded him as standing out as a particularly angry person. In his view, the applicant could not work. He was still irritable, difficult to motivate and if he was working would react the same as he had previously had done with anger and ‘shut-upping.’ Alcohol was a problem for the applicant. It takes a number of years to reduce alcohol consumption. Unless his PTSD came under control, there could be no such reduction. Nevertheless, he regarded the applicant as better than he was previously. He did not consider the applicant was the easiest person to treat and in particular his location in places distant from Dr Kay complicated that treatment and he would prefer to see the applicant every two weeks. He had been surprised that his colleagues had said that the applicant had a depressive disorder, because of the air of irritability which the applicant had shown and which, in his view, accorded with the symptoms that he had regularly seen as relating to PTSD. With regard to the rating which he had given the applicant on Item 4.2(20 for manifest distress) this had resulted in the fact that when he saw the applicant he was quite “bright red”.
In cross-examination on behalf of the applicant, Dr Kay said it was possible to have both PTSD and depressive disorder. He did not consider that the applicant’s condition was by any means exceptional. He considered the medication of Lexapro which he had prescribed in the past four years had made a difference to the applicant, but that the applicant was still severely disabled. He would become angry and angrier but was not psychotic.
In re-examination Dr Kay said that the applicant had a choleric temperament.
EVIDENCE OF DR SPEAR
Dr Spear, also a consultant psychiatrist, had three written reports before the Tribunal. The first was dated 11 May 2011. It was based upon his review of available records of file data, and an interview and examination of the applicant.
Dr Spear said that by 2007 the applicant had symptoms consistent with major depressive disorder. Subsequently he had some symptoms of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (such as vivid memories and nightmares). Dr Spear summarised his diagnosis as follows:
“In summary, my diagnosis is according to DSM IV-TR is as follows:
Axis I Major Depressive Disorder, in partial remission.
Alcohol Abuse.
Axis II Choleric temperament. No personality disorder.
Axis III Limited movement of shoulders, sexual dysfunction,
prostatic cancer.
Axis IV Workplace issues. Traumatic military events in 1972.
Axis V Global Assessment Functioning 65, mild symptoms.
Although Mr Eddington has some Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms such as insomnia, flashbacks and avoidance behaviour and he witnessed a traumatic event when his fellow serviceman, Charlie, was injured during a patrol in Vietnam, he does not meet the DSM IV criteria for Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Mr Eddington has significantly reduced his alcohol intake although his alcohol use is still higher than recommended.
Mr Eddington has not worked in paid employment since he sold his business in 2007. Prior to that for a number of years he had issues where he was angry with customers. He was able to work in part time role as shire president until June 2009 when he resigned.
He has ongoing problems with irritability, avoidance, loss of interest, reduced confidence, difficulty socialising, a belief he cannot work and a fear that he will be verbally abusive in the workplace. Given his ongoing mental health symptoms, even though he has improved with treatment and considering his duration of not working, it seems improbable that he will not be able to return to work even with further treatment.
It is appropriate for him to continue to have ongoing treatment from a consultant psychiatrist including antidepressant medication such as Escitalopram 10mg a day.
He may also benefit from referral to a psychologist for further advice and strategies for anger management, exploring the triggers and ways to prevent anger from occurring as well as ways to manage anger when it does occur. Given the chance of returning to employment seem low, vocational rehabilitation is unlikely to be successful at this time.”
With reference to the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans’ Affairs Pensions (GARP) Chapter VI, emotional and behaviour, Dr Spear assessed the applicant as having the following ratings:
Table 4.1 – Subjective Distress Rating 6
Table 4.2 – Manifest Distress Rating 6
Table 4.3 – Functional Effects Rating 0
Table 4.4 – Occupation Rating 8
Table 4.5 – domestic Situation Rating 1
Table 4.6 – Social Interaction Rating 2
Table 4.7 – Leisure Activities Rating 0
Table 4.8 – Current Therapy Rating 3Final Rating 25
In a supplementary report dated 8 May 2012 Dr Spear considered additional information provided from Dr Kay. He stated:
“In terms of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder:
At interview Mr Eddington reported that the alleged traumatic military event did not affect him too much at the time.
There is little evidence of persistent avoidant behaviour apart from one report that he rarely spoke of the war.
There is evidence of increased arousal with anger outbursts on his return from Vietnam.
At interview he reported vivid memories and vivid dreams of alleged military trauma. Theses appear to have been reported after he met a veteran’s advocate.
Mr Eddington has been able to maintain a meaningful long-term relationships with wife, close friends and family.
Mr Eddington has been extensively involved in his local community for example as a junior farmer’s president, health club committees, Lion’s Club and St John’s Ambulance, as well as being a golf and swimming coach. This level of community involvement appears inconsistent with post traumatic stress disorder.
Mr Eddington was the owner and manager of a hardware store until 2006.”
Dr Spear said that his diagnosis remained that of a major depressive disorder. He considered that alcohol abuse was the applicant’s principal mental health issue. He said that the applicant had some symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. He did not meet the DSM-IV TR criteria for that condition.
In a further supplementary letter dated 12 January 2012, he addressed the question of the difference between depressive disorder and PTSD as follows:
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is defined by DSM-IV as follows:
The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:
1.The person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury or the threat to the physical integrity of self or others, and
2.The person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness or horror.
In addition there must be symptoms of re-experiencing of the trauma, persistent avoidance of the stimuli, persistent symptoms of increased arousal, and these symptoms should have a duration of longer than one month and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational and other important areas of functioning.
Symptoms of re-experiencing might for example include:
1.Recurrent and intrusive distressing reflections of the event including images, thoughts or perceptions
2.Recurrent distressing dreams
3.Acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring
4.Intense psychological distress at exposure
5.Psychological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble parts of the traumatic event.
Persistent avoidance of stimuli includes:
1. Efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings or conversations associated with the trauma
2. Efforts to avoid activities, places or people that arouse reflections of the trauma
3. Inability to recall important aspects of the trauma
4. Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in significant activities
5. Feelings of detachment or estrangement from others
6. Restricted range of affect
7. Sense of foreshortened future
Persistent symptoms of increased arousal include difficulty falling or staying asleep, irritability or outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilance, or an exaggerated startle response.
A Major Depressive Episode is defined by DSM-IV as follows:
Five or more of the following symptoms are present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning. At least one of these symptoms must be a depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure:
1. Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day
2. Markedly diminished interest or pleasure
3. Significant weight loss, insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day
4. Psychomotor agitation or retardation
5. Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day
6. Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt
7. Diminished ability to think or concentrate
8. Recurrent thought of death or suicide
Mr Eddington, from his own statements, cannot have a Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder because he stated: “It didn’t affect me too much at the time”. He gave detailed accounts of the events and he reported that he was able to explain these to fellow-servicemen who did not have recollections of the event.
He did have some symptoms of Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder such as vivid memories and nightmares. He has been an active member of his community and involved in an extensive amount of community work. He was the owner manager of a hardware store and worked for the Shark Bay Council for a number of years including being Shire President.
Currently he describes intermittent and mild mental health symptoms such as periods where he may feel more lethargic, anger “every now and then”, a depressed mood “every now and then”, and he confirmed he had not had suicidal thoughts since 2009.”
Dr Spear also addressed the question of whether the applicant’s treatment with Lexapro for some time before he saw Dr Spear in 2009 could have masked the PTSD symptoms causing him to arrive at another diagnosis. He stated that:
“My opinion is that Escitalopram has not masked Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and prevented me from making a diagnosis of Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder. However, if more evidence became available, for example, more documentation of symptoms from Dr Oleh Kay, Treating Psychiatrist, then I would reconsider my diagnosis. However, on the basis of the documentation provided to me and Mr Eddington’s presentation and reports of symptoms at interview, there is insufficient evidence for me to make a diagnosis of Post -Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I trust this clarifies matters, but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.”
In oral evidence given by telephone to the Tribunal Dr Spear confirmed his conclusion that the applicant had Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Abuse and although there was some PTSD present he did not meet the DSM-IV criteria. The applicant’s trauma, having seen his mate Charlie injured, had occurred 36 years earlier and could not be PTSD after that passage of time. There could be delayed onset but that would need symptoms to support it. The background had been that the applicant was less gregarious and more argumentative after his service in Vietnam. He accepted that Lexapro could be a useful prescription for both anti-depressive disorder and PTSD. The applicant did not work since 2006. He accepted that PTSD may show signs of depressive disorder and that there was an overlap of symptoms. However, in his view, he did not consider the applicant had experienced PTSD on the information made available to him.
In cross-examination he accepted that Lexapro can affect mood and reduce distress. The applicant had presented well at interview to him and he took account of the good and supportive relationship with the applicant’s wife and the fact that the applicant had a number of life-long friends.
EVIDENCE OF DR MANDER
The Tribunal had before it two written reports from Dr Mander. The first was dated 16 October 2009 and was based upon an interview of the applicant by Dr Mander on 15 October 2009 and an interview with the applicant’s wife. He had considered the Veterans’ Review Board Decisions and Reasons and reports of Dr Kay dated 21 January 2009 and 6 February 2009.
Dr Mander concluded in this report as follows:
“I find myself in disagreement with my colleague, Dr Kay, regarding the diagnosis. From the claimant’s description I agree that he had some sleep disturbance and more frequent memories about Charlie following his meeting with him in 2004. However, by the claimant’s own account, any issues regarding this were minor and in my view insufficient to consider that he had post traumatic disorder.
In contrast, his reaction to the ongoing verbal attacks and accusations from a fellow council member from 2007 has provoked a significant and extensive depressive illness which is quite classic in its presentation. He describes depressed mood, thoughts of suicide, social withdrawal and pervasive anhedonia, further problems with his sleep and concentration and, by June, an inability to carry on in the workplace. During that period he also had more frequent memories of Charlie and his accident, but this would not be uncommon in a situation where his depression was so significant. It is at least possible that he had a similar episode during a time of life crisis in 1990.
His symptoms were significant and I suspect that if I completed the GARP at that time, I would have concluded that he had a high score. However, his symptoms have settled substantially (although not completely) and this without any active treatment.”
He added:
“Given that he rates three out of four days as good, it seems reasonable to conclude that he could manage at least 8 hours of paid work per week with an expectation that this would increase back to his normal ten to twenty hours as his depression continues to improve.”
The ratings which Dr Mander gave were:
following ratings:
Table 4.1 – Subjective Distress Rating 3
Table 4.2 – Manifest Distress Rating 6
Table 4.3 – Functional Effects Rating 1
Table 4.4 – Occupation Rating 2
Table 4.5 – domestic Situation Rating 0
Table 4.6 – Social Interaction Rating 0
Table 4.7 – Leisure Activities Rating 2
Table 4.8 – Current Therapy Rating 3
TOTAL 16
In a supplementary written report dated 19 January 2010 he accepted that PTSD and depression were conditions which had potential for overlap and sharing of a number of symptoms. These could cause diagnostic difficulties. He said that the two conditions co-exist, treatment of PTSD leads to resolution of depressive symptoms.
In relation to treatment with Lexapro, he considered this was a mild antidepressant and that it did not seem likely that it could treat the specific symptoms of PTSD whilst leaving symptoms of depression untouched. Even if Lexapro had alleviated symptoms and disguised diagnosis he would have expected the applicant to have been able to describe convincing past symptoms of PTSD.
In oral evidence to the Tribunal given by telephone, Dr Mander said that PTSD required in addition to an initial symptom a particular pattern of stressor. He considered that “seeing Charlie” would match the criteria for PTSD. He considered that the symptoms of the applicant were in a pattern more consistent with depressive disorder. In his view the fact that the applicant could be violent did not mean that he necessarily had PTSD. He repeated his views that he did not consider Lexapro had effective anti-depressive effect. He considered there was a possibility that the applicant could resume more work although he would hold that view more convincingly when the applicant had clear and obvious conduct supporting it. He was inclined to encourage the applicant to work until it was proven that he could not.
In cross-examination he said that there was an enormous overlap between PTSD and depression. In reality he thought that cases requiring consideration were boundary cases. A high proportion of cases seen by him were PTSD where they also had a diagnosable mood condition. He accepted that it was possible that his diagnosis could change if he saw the applicant more often. The disadvantage of the treating doctor is that he can become an advocate for the patient.
DR GILBERT’S OPINION
In the papers before the Tribunal there were reports from Dr Gilbert dated 18 October 2010 and 6 December 2010. Dr Gilbert considered that the applicant had significant PTSD which was as a direct consequence of the accidental discharge situation that he experienced with his mate Charlie whilst in service in Vietnam. She also considered that he had shown some early and promising improvements as a result of the taking of Lexapro. Dr Gilbert suggested an increase in dose given the ongoing level of his symptomology.
At the hearing no weight was placed on the opinion of Dr Gilbert and she was not called to give evidence. Accordingly, her opinion played no part in the hearing of the application.
APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS
The applicant’s representative argued that Dr Kay had seen the applicant in something like 25 sessions over three and a half years. However, Drs Spear and Mander had seen the applicant after treatment by medication and did not have the same opportunity to observe him as Dr Kay.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Respondent accepts that it has been found that the applicant has PTSD and this remains “on the book”. The condition of Depressive Disorder has not yet been accepted. The Respondent contends that the applicant does not suffer incapacity from PTSD but only from the depressive disorder. For a finding in that respect the respondent relies upon the opinions of Drs Spear and Mander.
TRIBUNAL’S REASONING
It is apparent that there is a conflict in the expert evidence between the testimony of Dr Kay, on the one hand, and Drs Spear and Mander on the other hand.
The evidence of Dr Kay stressed that the applicant had been exposed to a traumatic event. However, it is not evidence which supports a finding that the applicant has ‘persistently’ re-experienced that event from its occurrence to the present. Likewise it is not evidence of persistent avoidance of associated stimuli or of symptoms of increased arousal on a persistent basis. Although Dr Kay has had the longest contact with the applicant of all the expert witnesses, he has been limited in that contact as a consequence of the location of the applicant. The other experts had put to them the effect of Dr Kay’s evidence and did not agree with it for reasons they stated. Taking all that into account, we do not consider that we can accept the evidence of Dr Kay.
We do not consider there is any reason not to accept the remaining expert evidence, namely that of Drs Spear and Mander.
We therefore find that the applicant has depressive disorder.
From the evidence concerning this disorder we also find that the applicant’s incapacity from war-caused injury is not of itself alone sufficient to render the applicant incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week. Likewise it is not established that the applicant is by reason of that incapacity alone prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that he was undertaking.
CONCLUSION
We therefore consider that the application for review should be dismissed.
In the usual instance this would mean that the orders made by the Veteran’s Review Board on 28 July 2011 should continue undisturbed. However, those orders did not address the issue of whether the orders made by the primary decision-maker on 18 February 2009 accepting the applicant’s claim for posttraumatic stress disorder should be set aside. Given the decision by this Tribunal it would seem that question should now receive consideration.
Accordingly the Tribunal will direct that within 14 days of the publication of these reasons each of the parties file with the Tribunal and serve on each other a draft of the orders which they consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.
I certify that the preceding 47 (forty seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President R D Nicholson.
...(sgd) T Freeman................
Associate
Dated 14 November 2012
Date(s) of hearing 10 and 11 September 2012 Advocate for the Applicant Mr P Harris Advocate for the Respondent Mr C Ponnuthurai
0
0
0