Robert Mewett and Repatriation Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

[2013] AATA 277 

Division Veterans' Appeals Division

File Numbers

2012/3535

2012/4499

Re

Robert Mewett

APPLICANT

And

Repatriation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Date   8 May 2013
Place Brisbane (heard in Townsville)

The decision under review related to depressive disorder is set aside and varied.  The decision under review related to ischaemic heart disease is affirmed.

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

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Pensions and benefits – Pension at special rate – Date of onset of depressive disorder – Ischaemic heart disease – Category 1A stressor – Decision related to depressive disorder set aside and substituted – Decision related to ischaemic heart disease affirmed

LEGISLATION

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Statement of Principles, No. 28 of 2008

Statement of Principles, No 90 of 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

  1. Robert Mewett suffers from a depressive disorder and a heart condition. He says those conditions are a result of his work as a bomb disposal technician while serving in the RAAF between 1981 and 2006. He has asked for a pension paid at the special rate under s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The hearing which has led to this decision focused on whether it was possible to establish a link between the conditions and the applicant’s defence service.

  2. In order to succeed in his claim for depressive disorder, Mr Mewett must satisfy the requirements imposed by the applicable Statement of Principles (SoP) published by the Repatriation Medical Authority, No. 28 of 2008. As a practical matter, that means he must establish he was exposed to a category 1A, category 1B, or category 2 stressor in the two-year period before the onset of his depressive condition. To succeed in his claim for ischaemic heart disease, he must satisfy the requirements of the SoP applicable to that condition, which is No. 90 of 2007. The applicant can satisfy the requirements of that SoP if he can establish his depressive disorder:

    (a) was defence-caused, and

    (b) the depressive condition had a date of onset prior to early 2001. (Factor 6(m) in the ischaemic heart disease SoP refers to the presence of a clinically significant psychiatric disorder for at least 5 years before the date of onset of the heart condition.)

  3. The applicant provided a good deal of evidence about his experience as a bomb-disposal technician. He had difficulty remembering some events. His recollection of dates and the detail of some specific events was especially vague. Even so, I am satisfied he was doing his best to assist the Tribunal. I accept he was a credible witness and I have no reason to doubt what he said at the hearing or in his statements. I accept his evidence.

  4. Mr Mewett told a number of stories about hair-raising experiences he had as a bomb-disposal technician. He was routinely required to handle unexploded munitions. That often occurred in a controlled environment which limited the risk – although Mr Mewett told stories about how…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robert Mewett and Repatriation Commission and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] AATA 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, Robert Mewett sought to challenge a decision made by the Repatriation Commission regarding his claim for benefits associated with his health conditions. Specifically, Mewett argued that his depression and ischaemic heart disease were related to his service in the defence force. The court was required to determine whether the Commission's findings were legally sound and if the conditions in question were indeed related to Mewett's service.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of evidence and the application of statutory criteria to determine the onset and causation of Mewett's health conditions. The court needed to assess the medical evidence presented, particularly the testimony of Professor Baune, and decide whether Mewett's depression could be diagnosed as early as 1998 or 1999. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the ischaemic heart disease was linked to Mewett's service.

In its reasoning, the court expressed that while Professor Baune suggested the possibility of Mewett suffering from depression as early as 1998 or 1999, the evidence was not conclusive enough to support such a diagnosis at that time. The court emphasised that while it did not disrespect Professor Baune's opinion, determining the exact onset of depression was not typically a concern for a treating doctor. The court also noted that Professor Baune's testimony lacked the conviction necessary to establish a definitive diagnosis in the specified years, even if some symptoms were emerging. Consequently, the court was unable to draw a firm conclusion about the onset of Mewett's depression. However, the court affirmed that Mewett's ischaemic heart disease was related to his service.

The court set aside the decision concerning the depressive disorder and remitted the question of assessment to the Repatriation Commission for further consideration. It affirmed the decision regarding the ischaemic heart disease, maintaining that it was related to Mewett's defence service. The court's final orders thus involved a reconsideration of the depressive disorder's onset and its relation to Mewett's service, while upholding the existing decision on the ischaemic heart disease.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

While Professor Baune was willing to countenance the possibility Mr Mewett was ill with depression from as early as 1998 or 1999, I am not persuaded the evidence is such that a diagnosis could be made at that point. I mean no disrespect towards Professor Baune in making that finding: determining a precise date of onset is not necessarily something that would ordinarily matter to a doctor treating a patient like Mr Mewett. In any event, I do not think Professor Baune’s oral evidence on this question was expressed with such conviction that I could be reasonably satisfied a diagnosis of depression could be made in 1998/1999, even if some of the symptoms of depression were beginning to manifest at that early point. We simply do not know enough about the interaction with the psychiatrist in 1998 or 1999 and the circumstances which surrounded it to reach a firm conclusion. CONCLUSION The decision in relation to the applicant’s claim in respect of depressive disorder is set aside. I decide in substitution that his depression condition is related to his defence service. I remit the question of assessment to the respondent for further consideration. The decision in relation to the applicant’s ischaemic heart disease is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.