Roncevich and Repatriation Commission - [2002] AATA 343

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 343

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No D2001/54

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION          )
           Re      JURE JACK RONCEVICH
  Applicant
           And    REPATRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr DW Muller, Senior Member

Date14 May 2002
PlaceBrisbane

Decision      The Tribunal: 1.       Sets aside the decision under review in so far as it related to the applicant's claim for medical treatment and pension for incapacity from lumbar spondylosis and, by consent, in substitution determines that the applicant's lumbar spondylosis is defence-caused within the meaning of that term in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, with effect from 20 May 1997. 2.           Remits the matter of the applicant's defence-caused lumbar spondylosis to the respondent for assessment. 3.   Affirms the decision under review that the applicant's internal derangement of his left knee is not defence-caused.
  (Sgd) D W Muller
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS – injury arising out of intoxication at a sergeants mess during non-compulsory social occasion not defence-caused.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

REASONS FOR DECISION

14 May 2002 Mr DW Muller, Senior Member

This is an application to review decisions to reject claims for medical treatment and incapacity for two conditions suffered by the applicant, Jure Jack Roncevich, namely lumbar spondylosis and internal derangement of the left knee.
At the outset it was conceded by Ms Ford of Counsel for the respondent, that the applicant's lumbar spondylosis is defence-caused within the meaning of that term in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, with effect from 20 May 1997.
Mr Roncevich enlisted in the Australian Army as a seventeen year old in 1974. He was eventually discharged from the Army in 1998. In 1986 he was a sergeant and he was living in the sergeants quarters on the floor above the ground floor, on the base at Holdsworthy.
On the night of 27 February 1986, Mr Roncevich was ironing his Army clothes to be ready for the following day. During the course of his ironing he felt an urge to spit. He believes that his spitting habit was the result of his then smoking habit. He walked across to an open window, climbed onto a trunk which was just below the window sill and bent forward to spit out the window. He overbalanced, tripped on the window sill and fell out the window onto the ground below. As a result of the fall, he injured his left knee.
Mr Roncevich claims that the main reason for his lack of balance and the consequent fall through the window, was the fact that he was inebriated at the time. He had been drinking beer in the sergeants mess for about four hours before he returned to his room to do his ironing before going to bed.
The claim made on behalf of Mr Roncevich is that the knee injury is defence-caused because:
(i)Mr Roncevich was on 24 hour call as a sergeant in the Army and therefore he was on duty when he fell through the window.
(ii)Mr Roncevich was living on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Roncevich and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Roncevich and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 343
Case: [2002] AATA 343
Decision Date: 14 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roncevich and Repatriation Commission involved a veteran who claimed compensation for an injury sustained during a non-compulsory social occasion at a sergeants mess. The central dispute was whether the injury was attributable to the veteran's intoxication and the nature of the event, or if it was a defence-caused injury warranting compensation under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was tasked with determining the merits of the claim.

The tribunal had to decide whether the injury sustained by the veteran during a non-compulsory social gathering at a sergeants mess, while intoxicated, was a result of defence service. This involved examining the circumstances under which the injury occurred and whether the event was connected to the veteran's duties. The tribunal also had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to ascertain if the injury was compensable.

The tribunal ruled that the injury did not arise out of the veteran's service and was not compensable. The reasoning was that the event was a non-compulsory social occasion, and the veteran's intoxication played a significant role in the injury. The tribunal emphasised that the injury was not related to the veteran's duties or service and therefore did not qualify as a defence-caused injury. The decision was based on the interpretation of the legislation and the specific circumstances of the incident.

As a result of the tribunal's decision, the veteran's claim for compensation was dismissed. The tribunal found that the injury did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The ruling clarified that injuries arising from non-compulsory social activities, particularly when intoxication is a contributing factor, are not considered defence-caused and are not compensable.

Orders