Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 455
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/0753
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re RONALD DAVIS Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member Date29 June 2011
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..............[Sgd]................................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Disability pension – Operational service with Royal Australian Navy – Application of Statements of Principles – Appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions – No factual basis for diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder – Posttraumatic stress disorder not war-caused – Diagnosis and clinical onset of alcohol abuse and drug abuse – Reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised for alcohol abuse and drug abuse – Hypothesis disproved beyond reasonable doubt – Alcohol abuse and drug abuse not war-caused – Decision under review affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 37, 120, 120A, 196B
Border v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2010] FCA 1430
Drew v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 537
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136; (2003) 37 AAR 363Glasby v Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 664.
Hunter v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 145; (2010) 114 ALD 89
Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532; (2000) 60 ALD 401
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82; (1998) 49 ALD 193; (1998) 27 AAR 144
Repatriation Commission v Gorton [2001] FCA 1194; (2001) 65 ALD 609
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300; (2003) 38 AAR 176
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCR 633Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160; (2003) 75 ALD 420
REASONS FOR DECISION
29 June 2011 Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member BACKGROUND
1. On 15 May 2008 the applicant, Ronald Davis, lodged with the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”), in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”), a claim for a disability pension for “psychiatric disorder”. He contended that this was related to circumstances of his service with the Royal Australian Navy (“the RAN”) which was from 4 January 1967 until 10 August 1972.
2. On 26 May 2008 the respondent determined that the appropriate medical diagnoses for the claimed conditions were posttraumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, drug abuse and alcohol abuse. It also determined that those conditions were not related to Mr Davis’ service. On 17 November 2008 the Veterans’ Review Board (“the Board”) affirmed the decision in relation to depressive disorder, drug abuse and alcohol abuse on the basis that these conditions were not related to Mr Davis’ service. The Board also affirmed the decision in relation to posttraumatic stress disorder on the basis that relevant diagnostic criteria for that condition were not met.
ISSUES AND SERVICE
3. Mr T Meehan, on behalf of the applicant, conceded that there was no current diagnosis of…
Continue reading RONALD DAVIS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- RONALD DAVIS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2011] AATA 455
- Case
- [2011] AATA 455
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether Davis’s psychiatric conditions, specifically PTSD and substance abuse, were caused by his military service. The application of the relevant Statements of Principles regarding war-caused psychiatric conditions was central to this determination. The court examined the medical evidence and the appropriateness of the diagnoses in light of the principles. It also assessed whether there was a factual basis for diagnosing PTSD and whether it was reasonably related to Davis’s service.
The court found that there was no factual basis for diagnosing Davis with PTSD. Additionally, even though a hypothesis of a relevant relationship to service was reasonably raised concerning his substance abuse, this hypothesis was disproven beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court held that neither PTSD nor substance abuse was war-caused. The reasoning was based on the medical evidence provided and the application of the relevant legal principles. As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
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.