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, MemberDate6 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alcohol dependence/abuse – diagnosis of PTSD – operational service – escort duties to Vietnam – sequential approach to superseded SoPs – category 1A stressor – category 1B stressor – category 2 stressor – severe psychsocial stressor – severe stressor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, Member1. 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
- AGLC
- Sanderson and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 891
- Case
- [2008] AATA 891
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.