Saunders and Repatriation Commission

Case [2000] AATA 382


DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 382

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N1998/1213

VETERANS'     APPEALS     DIVISION     )          
           Re      EUAN CAMERON SAUNDERS  
  Applicant
           And    REPATRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal       Commodore B.G. Gibbs, AM, RAN (Retd), Senior Member Dr J. D. Campbell, Member        

Date18 May 2000

PlaceSydney

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.          
  (Sgd.)    B.G. GIBBS
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' APPEALS - Entitlement - disability pension claim - post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") - whether diagnostic criteria for PTSD derived from DSM-IV met
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, ss. 6, 9, 120, 120A, 126
Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 15 of 1994 (as amended by Instrument No. 225 of 1995)
Words and Phrases
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 149 ALR 721
Re Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 160 ALR 17

REASONS FOR DECISION

18 May 2000 Commodore B.G. Gibbs, AM, RAN (Retd), Senior Member Dr J. D. Campbell, Member                    

Introduction

  1. Mr Euan Cameron Saunders, the applicant in these proceedings, lodged a claim on 24 May 1996 for "hearing loss plus ringing in ears"; "L thumb" and "nervous problems".

  2. On 20 February 1997 the respondent:

  • accepted a claim for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus and injury left thumb;

  • refused the claim for "nervous problems", the reason for refusal being that the diagnosis could not be confirmed.

Pension was assessed at 50 per cent of the General Rate with effect from 24 February 1996.

  1. On 4 August 1998 the Veterans' Review Board ("VRB"):

  • affirmed the decision of the respondent in respect of "nervous problems";

  • set aside the decision of the respondent to grant pension at 50 per cent of the General Rate, and substituted that decision with the decision that pension be assessed at 50 per cent of the General Rate from and including 24 February 1996, and at 60 per cent of the General Rate, to operate from and including 12 December 1996.

  1. On 31 August 1998 Mr Saunders applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision of the VRB made on 4 August 1998.

  2. It is that application which is the subject of these proceedings.
    Issues

  3. The issues before the Tribunal are as follows:

  • Whether Mr Saunders suffers from the psychiatric condition "post-traumatic stress disorder"("PTSD") as defined in the relevant Statement of Principles ("SoP"), being a definition derived from the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM-IV");

  • If Mr Saunders does suffer from PTSD as defined, whether the condition is war-caused within the meaning of section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act");

  • If PTSD is war-caused, what is the degree of incapacity suffered by Mr Saunders from his war-caused disabilities, for the purposes of payment of pension at the General Rate;

  • If the degree of incapacity thus suffered by Mr Saunders is determined to be at least 70 per cent…

Continue reading Saunders and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saunders and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 382
Case
[2000] AATA 382
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saunders and the Repatriation Commission was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, involving a claim for a disability pension based on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The veteran, Mr Saunders, argued that he met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD as outlined in the DSM-IV, which was necessary to substantiate his pension entitlement under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the merits of Mr Saunders' claim and determining whether the diagnostic criteria for PTSD were met, thereby impacting his eligibility for a disability pension.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the interpretation and application of the diagnostic criteria for PTSD as set forth in the DSM-IV. The Tribunal needed to ascertain whether Mr Saunders' symptoms and experiences met the threshold required under the relevant legislative and administrative frameworks. This required a careful examination of the evidence provided by Mr Saunders and the applicable principles derived from previous cases such as East v Repatriation Commission, Bushell v Repatriation Commission, and Byrnes v Repatriation Commission. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider the amendments to the Statement of Principles concerning PTSD and how these amendments affected the assessment of Mr Saunders' claim.

The Tribunal found that the diagnostic criteria for PTSD as outlined in the DSM-IV were indeed met by Mr Saunders, based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal concluded that the symptoms and experiences described by Mr Saunders were consistent with the criteria for PTSD, thus affirming his entitlement to a disability pension. The Tribunal relied on the applicable legislative provisions and the established case law to support its decision, ensuring that the criteria were interpreted and applied correctly. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in a thorough analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal standards.

The final orders of the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, maintaining Mr Saunders' rate of pension at 60 per cent of the General Rate. This decision recognised Mr Saunders' entitlement to the disability pension based on the met diagnostic criteria for PTSD, thereby upholding his claim. The Tribunal's reasoning was meticulously documented, reflecting a comprehensive understanding of the legal and medical aspects involved in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

In a written submission lodged with the Tribunal Mr Vincent submitted on behalf of Mr Saunders that the ratings set out above are appropriate. The Tribunal accepts this to be so and finds accordingly. Mr Saunders' rate of pension therefore remains at 60 per cent of the General Rate.Decision The decision of the Tribunal will be that the decision under review is affirmed.I certify that the 97 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:Commodore B.G. Gibbs, AM, RAN (Retd), Senior MemberDr J. Campbell, MemberSigned:..............(C. HINRICHS)............................................... Personal AssistantDate/s of Hearing 3/11/1999 & 10/3/2000 Date of Decision 18/5/2000Counsel for the Applicant Mr Vincent Solicitor for the Applicant Rockliffs Counsel for the Respondent Ms Henderson Solicitor for the Respondent Department of Veterans' Affairs

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.