Saunders and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 1058

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1058

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No V2004/546

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL GEORGE SAUNDERS

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date24 October 2005

PlaceMelbourne

Decision In application V2004/546 the decision under review in so far as it relates to diagnosis is set aside and in substitution IT IS DECIDED the applicant suffers generalised anxiety disorder.  The remainder of the decision is otherwise affirmed.

..............................................

Senior Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – Vietnam veteran – PTSD accepted in 1999 – decision revoked by s 31 review in 2001 – affirmed by VRB but substituted diagnosis – number of events in service alleged – applicant suffers from motor neurone disease – unable to give evidence – statement received as his evidence – finding of generalised anxiety disorder as diagnosis – finding that some events did occur but did not constitute severe psychosocial stressors – finding that generalised anxiety disorder not war-caused

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)

Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331

Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193

Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 1541

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879

Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711

White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 October 2005 Mr John Handley, Senior Member            

1.       The applicant applied to review a decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) on 16 April 2004.  However this application has a history which commenced many years before the decision then made.

2.       Mr Saunders lodged a claim on 12 February 1999 for acceptance of conditions described as “back and neck injuries” and “PTSD” (T‑documents, page 70).  On 18 May 1999, the respondent accepted a claim for “cervical spondylosis” and “post-traumatic stress disorder” and granted pension at 40 per cent of the general rate (page 92).

3.       Mr Saunders challenged the decision with respect to the assessment of rate of pension.  On 13 December 1999 the VRB affirmed that decision (page 96).

4.       For reasons which are not apparent from the T‑documents, the respondent later commenced an investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s service and the events alleged by him as having occurred within service and giving rise to the condition of PTSD.  Writeway Research Services (Writeway) were consulted and commissioned to investigate events within service alleged by Mr Saunders.  A report was prepared and received by the respondent on 14 November 2001 (page 251).  The respondent also arranged for the applicant to be examined by Dr Haik, a consultant psychiatrist, who provided a report dated 8 November 2001 (page 238).

5.       On 13 December 2001, the respondent advised Mr Saunders that by reason of the content of the report of Writeway, doubt had been expressed as to the “historical accuracy” of the events alleged to have occurred…