Sanderson and Repatriation Commission

Case [2008] AATA 891


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 891

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/2300

VETERANS'        APPEALS       DIVISION )
Re NOEL SANDERSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr Egon Fice, Member
Dr Kerry Breen, Member

Date6 October 2008

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) Egon Fice

Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – depressive disorder – alcohol dependence/abuse – diagnosis of PTSD – operational service – escort duties to Vietnam – sequential approach to superseded SoPs – category 1A stressor – category 1B stressor – category 2 stressor – severe psychsocial stressor – severe stressor

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 270

McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) FCR 323

Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331

Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200

Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307

Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321

Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581

Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 October 2008 Mr Egon Fice, Member
Dr Kerry Breen, Member

1.      Mr Noel Sanderson served in the Royal Australian Navy (the Navy) between August 1966 and April 1972.  He had operational service, as that term is defined in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), in Vietnam between 10 and 18 February 1969 on board HMAS Derwent (the Derwent).  

2.      Mr Sanderson was receiving the disability pension at 50 per cent of the general rate.  In June 2004 Mr Sanderson submitted a claim for an increase in the disability pension for what he described as a PTSD/anxiety disorder and tinea.  In September 2004 Mr Sanderson lodged a further claim for alcohol dependence.  On 23 September 2004 the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) notified Mr Sanderson that it accepted his claim for tinea but rejected his claim for PTSD/anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence.  The Commission treated the latter claim as an alcohol abuse claim.  Mr Sanderson sought a review of the decision by the Commission pursuant to s 31 of the Act but the Commissioner declined to do so and suggested he proceed to the Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB).  On 2 May 2007 the VRB affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.  Mr Sanderson now seeks review of the VRB’s decision by this Tribunal.

3.      The issues before us are:

(a)whether Mr Sanderson suffers from PTSD or any other psychiatric condition;

(b)whether Mr Sanderson suffers from alcohol dependence/alcohol abuse;

(c)the date of clinical onset of any diagnosed condition;

(d)whether any diagnosed condition is causally related to Mr Sanderson’s operational service in the Navy.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

4.      Mr Sanderson was born on 16 June 1947.  He enlisted in the Navy on 27 August 1966 and trained as a Weapons Mechanic at HMAS Cerberus.  On completion of this training on 27 October 1967, he was promoted to Able Seaman Weapons Mechanic…

Continue reading Sanderson and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sanderson and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 891
Case
[2008] AATA 891
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sanderson, the applicant, brought a case against the Repatriation Commission, the respondent, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant sought review of a decision made by the respondent, which had denied his claim for a pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The crux of the dispute centred on the interpretation and application of specific sections of the Act, particularly those related to the determination of the applicant's eligibility for a pension based on his service history and the assessment of his disability.

The legal issues before the AAT revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions and the procedural fairness of the respondent's decision-making process. The applicant argued that the respondent had misapplied the law in denying his pension claim and that the process used to assess his disability was flawed. The AAT had to determine whether the respondent's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant's rights to procedural fairness were upheld.

The AAT examined the legislative framework and the evidence presented during the original decision-making process. It found that the respondent had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant sections of the Act. The AAT also determined that the process followed by the respondent was fair and did not disadvantage the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent, concluding that the applicant's appeal was without merit.

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.