Rowe and Repatriation Commission

Case [2004] AATA 662


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 662

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No W2003/58

VETERAN'S APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re TREVOR JOHN ROWE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member

Date25 June 2004

PlacePerth

Decision

Pursuant to s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal decides:

(a) to set aside the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) decision under review of 14 November 2002 in so far as it rejected Lumbar Spondylosis and to accept that condition as being war-caused with effect from 1 June 1999;

(b) to affirm the VRB decision under review in so far as it rejected the conditions of Anxiety Disorder and Psoriasis as being war-caused; and

(c) to remit the matter of assessment of incapacity from the now accepted Lumbar Spondylosis, together with all other accepted conditions, to the respondent.

............(sgd R D F Lloyd)....................

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – ex RAN with operational service WWII – claims anxiety disorder, psoriasis and lumbar spondylosis– anxiety disorder and psoriases rejected as hypotheses did not fit template of SoPs – lumbar spondylosis accepted on basis of lifting of weights/weight bearing to cumulative total of 120,000 kg – assessment of incapacity remitted to respondent.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120, 120A, 196B (2)

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 412

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334

Repatriation Commission v Gosenwinckel [1999] FCA 1273

Cornelius v Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 890

Statement of Principle Concerning Anxiety Disorder (Instrument No 1 of 2000)

Statement of Principle Concerning Lumbar Spondylosis (Instrument No 46 of 2002 as amended)

Statement of Principle Concerning Psoriasis (Instrument No 56 of 2002)

REASONS FOR DECISION

25 June 2004 Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member    

1.      This is an application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by Trevor John Bowden Rowe (“the applicant”) for a review of the VRB decision of 14 November 2002 which:

(a)affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”) of 19 January 2000 insofar as it determined that the conditions of Lumbar Spondylosis and Psoriasis were not war-caused;

(b)affirmed the respondent’s decisions of 30 October 2001 insofar as it was determined that the conditions of Anxiety Disorder and (again) Psoriasis were not war-caused, and that disability pension be paid at 40% of the General Rate.

2. The applicant attended the hearing and was assisted by his advocate Mr C Hammal. The respondent was represented by Mr C Ponnuthurai. The Tribunal had before it the documents filed pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T documents”). In addition, the following documents were taken into evidence:

(a)Tendered by the respondent:

·Exhibit R1: The transcript of VRB proceedings re T Rowe of 14 November 2002;

·Exhibit R2: Letter to Mr Rowe from Mr Ponnuthurai dated 25 September 2003, with attachment of two pages of the publication titled “War at Sea in the…

Continue reading Rowe and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rowe and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 662
Case
[2004] AATA 662
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rowe and Repatriation Commission involved a former serviceman who sought veterans’ entitlements for various conditions he claimed were caused by his operational service during World War II. The respondent, the Repatriation Commission, rejected the claims for anxiety disorder, psoriasis, and lumbar spondylosis. The applicant appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had to determine the validity of the rejected claims. The legal issues included whether the applicant's conditions fit within the applicable statements of principle and whether the Commission's assessment of incapacity was correct.

The AAT examined whether the applicant's claims for anxiety disorder and psoriasis could be accepted under the relevant statements of principle. It found that the conditions did not fit the templates provided in the statements, leading to their rejection. However, the AAT accepted the claim for lumbar spondylosis because the applicant's service involved lifting and carrying weights to a cumulative total of 120,000 kg, which aligned with the criteria in the Statement of Principle Concerning Lumbar Spondylosis. The AAT also noted that the Commission's assessment of incapacity needed reassessment in light of the newly accepted condition.

Consequently, the AAT set aside the Veterans’ Review Board's decision in part, accepting the claim for lumbar spondylosis and rejecting the claims for anxiety disorder and psoriasis. It also remitted the matter of incapacity assessment back to the Commission to consider the newly accepted condition along with any other accepted conditions. This decision highlighted the importance of aligning service activities with the criteria in the statements of principle for successful claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal decides:

(a) to set aside the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) decision under review of 14 November 2002 in so far as it rejected Lumbar Spondylosis and to accept that condition as being war-caused with effect from 1 June 1999;

(b) to affirm the VRB decision under review in so far as it rejected the conditions of Anxiety Disorder and Psoriasis as being war-caused; and

(c) to remit the matter of assessment of incapacity from the now accepted Lumbar Spondylosis, together with all other accepted conditions, to the respondent.

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.