Rowe and Repatriation Commission - [2000] AATA 471

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 471

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No Q98/1024

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION       )
           Re      WAYNE WALTER ROWE
  Applicant
           And    REPATRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President DP Breen, Presidential Member Brigadier IRW Brumfield, Member Dr KP Kennedy, Member

Date13 June 2000
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal varies the decision under review by deciding that the conditions of hypertension and inflammatory bowel disease are defence-caused with effect from 27 February 1997. The decision under review is otherwise affirmed. The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent Commission for assessment of pension.

(Sgd) DP BREEN
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – war-caused disease – hypertension – inflammatory bowel disease – adjustment disorder – psychosocial stressors.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 s 13
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (unreported FCA 532, 28 April 2000)

REASONS FOR DECISION

13 June 2000 Deputy President DP Breen, Presidential Member Brigadier IRW Brumfield, Member Dr KP Kennedy, Member

This is a review of a decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission dated 26 September 1997 which was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 19 June 1998. The applicant appeals the decision, insofar as it rejects the conditions of hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease and adjustment disorder as being defence-caused.
This case was heard before a Tribunal constituted by myself as Presiding Member and Brigadier IRW Brumfield and Dr KP Kennedy, Members on 6 April 2000 in Brisbane. The applicant, Wayne Walter Rowe, was represented by Mr P Sapsford of Counsel instructed by K.C. Gladstone, Solicitor and the respondent Commission was represented by Mr R Morison, Departmental Advocate.
The applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing and the following documents were also taken into evidence.
Exhibit 1 "T" Documents
Exhibit 2 Statement of Wayne Walter Rowe dated 13 October 1999

Mr Rowe joined the RAAF in April 1969 and was discharged in 1989. His eligible service is from 7 December 1972 to 3 May 1989. He claims that his hypertension is due to obesity which was due to his sedentary lifestyle in the Air Force and particularly his service in St Louis, Missouri, from 1985 to 1989. Mr Rowe also claims that his inflammatory bowel disease was caused by excessive tobacco consumption during his defence service. Finally, he asserts that he suffers from an adjustment disorder which was caused by stress and anxiety which arose during his service in Missouri and subsequent eligible service.
The applicable legislation is Section 13 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. It is in the following terms:
"13(1) Where:
(a) the death of a veteran was war-caused; or
(b)a veteran has become incapacitated from a war-caused injury or a war-caused disease;
the Commonwealth is, subject to this Act, liable to pay:
(c)in the case of the death of the veteran – pensions by way of compensation to the dependants of the veteran; or
(d)in the case of the incapacity of the veteran – pension by way of compensation to the veteran;
in accordance with this Act."

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 Rowe and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Rowe and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 471
Case: [2000] AATA 471
Decision Date: 13 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rowe and Repatriation Commission, the applicant sought a review of the Commission's decision to reject his claim for a war-caused disease. The applicant argued that his hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and adjustment disorder were attributable to his service in the armed forces, and thus compensable under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of the Commission's findings and the applicant's entitlement to compensation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's conditions were, in fact, war-caused diseases as defined by the Act. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the applicant's hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, and adjustment disorder could be linked to his military service, and whether these conditions warranted compensation. Additionally, the court needed to consider the Commission's assessment of the applicant's claims and the evidence presented.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that the Commission's decision was based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors. The Commission had reasonably concluded that the applicant's hypertension and inflammatory bowel disease were not war-caused diseases, as there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link to his military service. Furthermore, the court upheld the Commission's finding that the applicant's adjustment disorder was not a war-caused disease, as it was primarily attributed to psychosocial stressors unrelated to his service. The court was satisfied that the Commission's decision was supported by the evidence and that the applicant's claims were not substantiated.

The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and affirmed the Repatriation Commission's decision. The applicant was not entitled to compensation for the claimed war-caused diseases.

Orders