Sinclair and Repatriation Commission
[2003] AATA 445
•16 May 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 445
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2001/1443
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re Joseph Patrick Sinclair Applicant
And
Repatriation Commission
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
Dr P D Lynch, MemberDate16 May 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal decides that:
(a) the diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition is varied from “major affective disorder depressed type recurrent without psychotic features” to “depressive disorder”;
(b) the condition of depressive disorder is not defence-caused; and
(c) the decision under review is affirmed.
...............................................
Ms SM Bullock
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS - Entitlement - Disability Pension - Diagnosis - Depressive Disorder – Reasonable Satisfaction - Whether Defence-Caused – Bereavement – Loss of Employment
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss70, 119, 120, 120B
AUTHORITIES
Holthouse v Repatriation Commission (1982) 1 RPD 287
Re Repatriation Commission and Falkner (1987) 12 ALD 87
Re Easton and Repatriation Commission (1987) 12 ALD 777
REASONS FOR DECISION
16 May 2003 Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
Dr P D Lynch, Member1. This is an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by the Applicant, Mr Joseph Patrick Sinclair, of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) dated 10 May 1999 (T2), which refused the Applicant’s Disability Pension claim for “bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, hypertension, Depressive disorder, chronic bronchitis and emphysema and diabetes mellitus”. The Veterans’ Review Board (“the Board”) varied the diagnosis of “Depressive Disorder” to “Major affective disorder, depressed type recurrent without psychotic features” and affirmed the decision as varied, in relation to all claimed conditions except for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, which was found to be defence-caused and remitted for assessment to the Commission on 15 August 2001 (T15).
2. A Hearing was held before the Tribunal on 17 January 2003. The Applicant, Mr Sinclair, was represented by Mr B Winship, Solicitor, and the Respondent was represented by Ms P Hook, Departmental Advocate. Mr Sinclair gave oral evidence to the Tribunal, as did his wife, Mrs Margaret Sinclair. The Tribunal took into evidence documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T Documents”, T1-T24) and the following exhibits:
Exhibit Number
Description
Date
A1
Handwritten Statement of Mr J Sinclair
17 January 2003
A2
Report by Dr A Dinnen, Consultant Psychiatrist
3 July 2002
R1
Report by Dr R D Lewin, Consultant Psychiatrist
1 July 2002
R2
Clinical Notes from Dr J Potter, General Practitioner
Various
R3
Clinical Notes of Dr S M Jenkins, Psychiatrist
Various
ISSUES
3. At Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that the only condition being pursued in relation to the application for review to the Tribunal was the condition of “depressive disorder”, as diagnosed by the Commission on 10 May 1999, and as varied by the Board on 15 August 2001 to “major affective disorder depressed type recurrent without psychotic features”.. At the commencement of the Hearing, both parties contended that the correct diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s condition is “Depressive Disorder”, and not the diagnosis as varied by the Board. There was further agreement that the applicable Statement of Principles is the Statement of Principles concerning Depressive Disorder, Instrument Number 59 of 1998.
4. The issues in this matter are:
· What is the correct diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition?
· Whether Mr Sinclair’s circumstances meet at least one of the factors in the relevant Statement of Principles, so as to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that Mr Sinclair’s correctly diagnosed psychiatric condition is defence-caused.
LEGISLATION
5. A determination in this matter requires consideration of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”).
6. Section 70 of the Act deals with eligibility for pension for members of the Defence Force or Peacekeeping Force and their dependants.
7. Section 119 of the Act provides that decision-makers are not bound by the technicalities and takes into account difficulties including the passage of time, the absence or deficiencies in records and the dimming of memories.
8. In determining the diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s condition, the Tribunal must reach a finding of the correct diagnosis to the Tribunal’s reasonable satisfaction pursuant to subsection 120(4) of the Act. Furthermore, in deciding whether or not Mr Sinclair’s condition satisfies at least one of the factors in a relevant Statement of Principles, the Tribunal must also determine this to its reasonable satisfaction on the balance of probabilities. Subsection 120(4) states:
“120 Standard of proof
(4)Except in making a determination to which subsection (1) or (2) applies, the Commission shall, in making any determination or decision in respect of a matter arising under this Act or the regulations, including the assessment or re-assessment of the rate of a pension granted under Part II or Part IV, decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction.
Note: This subsection is affected by section 120B.
....”
9. Section 120B of the Act must be applied as the Tribunal is required to decide this matter to its reasonable satisfaction in accordance with any Statements of Principles issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority or any other relevant declarations or determinations under the Act.
SERVICE
10. Mr Sinclair served in the Royal Australian Air Force (“the RAAF”) from 8 October 1965 to 7 October 1987, being the date of “Termination of Period of Enlistment”(T3, p3). Mr Sinclair’s eligible defence service under the Act is 7 December 1972 until 7 October 1987, the date of discharge.
EVIDENCE OF MR JOSEPH PATRICK SINCLAIR
11. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that he was born on 28 March 1934 in Aldershot, England, and that he has a good recollection of his early family life in England. Mr Sinclair stated that there were no illnesses in his family that he was aware of, including psychiatric illnesses, except that his mother may have had some depression when his father was shipped to France in World War I. Mr Sinclair stated that his father was in the Army, and he was sent to France when Mr Sinclair was five years old, and he did not see him again until 1943. Mr Sinclair stated that his mother was left stranded and was also away from her family who were in Edinburgh. Mr Sinclair was sent to a Boarding School outside London when he was five years of age. Mr Sinclair stated that he was upset at first but that he coped. He saw his mother in school holidays and he travelled alone to his home in Edinburgh for six weeks per year. Mr Sinclair stated that he finished school in 1949 in Edinburgh.
12. Mr Sinclair stated that after school he worked in a tailor’s shop then worked as an apprentice moulder. Mr Sinclair stated that he was called to National Service in 1952 and that he served in the Royal Air Force (“the RAF”) from 1953 to 1957. He was sent to Aden (now Yemen) for two and a half years of that period and finished his service in the RAF in England.
13. Mr Sinclair stated that he met his first wife, Anne (nee) Daley, in the RAF in 1955 whilst serving in Aden. After Aden, Mr Sinclair and his wife Anne moved to Lincolnshire and then Dundee, where his children were born. After Mr Sinclair left the RAF in 1957, he stated that he had a number of jobs, including working in a bakery and working on the buses in Dundee as a driver and conductor. In early 1965, Mr Sinclair stated that he applied and was accepted into the RAAF and joined on 8 October 1965. Mr Sinclair stated that he and his family, including his three children aged 9, 7 and 6 arrived in Australia on 13 October 1965. The family were sent to South Australia where they lived in a migrant hostel and Mr Sinclair undertook RAAF training. The family were then transferred to Regents Park in Sydney remaining there until May 1970. During that period, Mr Sinclair became a motor transport driver in the RAAF.
14. Following Regents Park in 1970, Mr Sinclair stated that he was transferred overseas to the RAAF Base, Butterworth in Malaya and continued in motor transport work there. In 1971, Mr Sinclair stated that his first wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. His three children were 14, 12 and 11 at that time. Mr Sinclair stated that he felt a “bit devastated” and that he did no know what was going to happen. Mr Sinclair stated that his wife’s doctor advised his wife to have her breast removed, a procedure which she had in Malaya at Butterworth. Mr Sinclair stated that the children were organised to be billeted out to families at Butterworth. Mrs Sinclair returned to Australia for four weeks of radiation treatment at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (“RPAH”), after which she returned to Butterworth. Mr Sinclair described his feelings at this time as being upset and angry, particularly that his wife had to have her breast removed.
15. Mr Sinclair stated that before the family left Malaya, his wife went back to socialising and resumed normal activities such as playing Badminton and teaching some of the children on the base Badminton. Mr Sinclair stated that she “got on top of it” and that he also carried on with his activities. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that he helped start up the Youth Athletics Club and ran the Dolphin Swimming Club for children on the base. Mr Sinclair stated that he coped very well and that everything went back to normal. Mr Sinclair and his family left Butterworth in 1972 and were transferred to RAAF Richmond.
16. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that in 1975 his wife had a recurrence of cancer which had spread into her bones. She was told that she needed more treatment at RPAH, Sydney. The bone in her left leg had to be replaced with a pin, he stated, as the cancer had eaten the bone away. Mr Sinclair stated that he was once again very upset and angry about this. He had thought that she had recovered from cancer. Mr Sinclair stated that his wife died in February 1979.. He stated that this upset him terribly and he “went to pieces”. Mr Sinclair started drinking and smoking heavily following his wife’s death, he told the Tribunal.
17. Following the death of his first wife, Mr Sinclair stated that his mother immigrated from Scotland to Australia to help look after the children. At this stage, he was at Richmond and was then posted to Glenbrook. Mr Sinclair stated that he readjusted and came to his senses a couple of months later by approximately April 1979. At this time, he realised that he had to look after his children. Mr Sinclair stated that he saw a RAAF doctor at Richmond in 1979 and he thought that he was prescribed “Tryptanol”, but later stated that he could not remember exactly what medication he was prescribed, or whether the doctor was a psychiatrist. Mr Sinclair described feeling angry, frustrated and concerned about what was going to happen in the future. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that at that time, his oldest son and his daughter were both getting married. His mother and his youngest son, who was 19 years of age, continued to live with him. Mr Sinclair stated that they were coping and that he went about his work the best that he could. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that he was having “bits of difficulties” with work, but nothing dramatic and overall, he was adjusting and getting on with life.
18. Mr Sinclair stated that around this time, he met a woman and began a casual relationship, which then developed into a de facto relationship. In 1980, he was sent from Richmond to Glenbrook, and was still in a de facto relationship. Initially, Mr Sinclair received an excellent performance report from his supervising officer. The situation changed in 1982, when another Squadron Leader was posted to Glenbrook and Mr Sinclair did not get on with him. Mr Sinclair was asked to do the Squadron Leader’s work as well as his own work. The Squadron Leader “hounded” Mr Sinclair. Mr Sinclair approached the Wing Commander about the difficulties with the Squadron Leader and the issues were dealt with.
19. Mr Sinclair informed the Tribunal that he was posted to Regents Park and at that point, later in 1982, his de facto relationship started to break up. He stated that he was angry and hurt that the relationship did not work out. Mr Sinclair was then posted back to Glenbrook in 1984/1985. At this time his son joined the RAAF, which left him in his house alone.
20. Mr Sinclair stated that when he first returned to Glenbrook in 1984, he was coping with his work and got on well with the Warrant Officer. In 1985 at Glenbrook, he received an excellent report from the Warrant Officer and everything was fine until two or three months later. Mr Sinclair stated that the Warrant Officer started hounding him, for things such as reading the newspaper at work. Mr Sinclair stated that he was undertaking the Warrant Officer’s work as well as his own work. The Warrant Officer told him to “get off his backside and do some work”.. At this time he was a Sergeant, Mr Sinclair stated, and his duties were to supervise the drivers and the maintenance of vehicles. The Warrant Officer also ordered him to attend an RAAF social event, which was a dine-in night. Mr Sinclair stated that he could not understand why he was being hounded after being given such a good report by that same Warrant Officer. Later, the Warrant Officer prepared a report on Mr Sinclair that stated that Mr Sinclair was not doing his work, Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal. He was taken to the Flight Lieutenant about his performance. Mr Sinclair stated that this occurred only a couple of months after the good report had been made.
21. In early January 1986, having been in Glenbrook for approximately 12 months on the second occasion, Mr Sinclair was then posted to East Sale in Victoria. The de facto relationship had come to an end by this stage, Mr Sinclair stated. Mr Sinclair thought that this was probably due to his mood swings, which had developed, he believed, because of the Warrant Officer’s behaviour. Mr Sinclair stated that he felt that the Warrant Officer was trying to push him out of his job. Mr Sinclair stated that he consulted Dr Robinson in about 1985 concerning his difficulties with the Warrant Officer and was given the medication, “Tryptanol”, for depression. Mr Sinclair further stated that he stopped taking Tryptanol after two to three months.
22. Mr Sinclair stated that his situation improved in 1985 when he met his present wife, Margaret, who was living at Richmond and working at a Bus Company. Mr Sinclair stated that the relationship developed well with Margaret and they were very happy. When Mr Sinclair was posted to East Sale in early 1986, he told her he was leaving to do a course. Although Mr Sinclair had moved to East Sale, the relationship continued and on weekends, he used to travel to meet with Margaret.
23. In East Sale, another incident occurred involving the Warrant Officer from Glenbrook. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that the Flight Sergeant in East Sale had called him into his Office and informed him that he had received a letter from that Warrant Officer. The letter stated that Mr Sinclair was “a useless NCO”, who did not do his work and was incompetent. Mr Sinclair stated that the Flight Sergeant gave the letter to him and told him that he was not going to take any notice of it. Mr Sinclair stated that he “blew his stack” over this letter. Mr Sinclair thanked the Flight Sergeant for giving him the letter and he then tore it up. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that he feels now that he should have taken this matter further.
24. A few weeks after the letter incident, Mr Sinclair was promoted to Flight Sergeant. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that he believes the initial good report from the Warrant Officer in Glenbrook was the reason he was promoted at this time. Mr Sinclair acknowledged that he did not know who recommended him for promotion. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that in 1986, he and Margaret were continuing to get on very well and were both very happy. Mr Sinclair stated that he was not depressed at this time. Mr Sinclair stated that in 1986, he asked Margaret to marry him and arrangements were made for them to live in the married quarters in East Sale. There were no further difficulties in East Sale until about 1987, Mr Sinclair stated.
25. Mr Sinclair told the Tribunal that East Sale RAAF base had two functions, pilot training and the School of Photography. Mr Sinclair worked in the transport section, he stated, and it was his job to allot the RAAF vehicles. Mr Sinclair stated that in about 1987 a review team came from Canberra, in his view to cut back the vehicles. Mr Sinclair stated that the Company Commander was on leave at this time. Mr Sinclair stated that he had about 100 vehicles and the team from Canberra dramatically reduced their transport capability by taking about ten to 12 vehicles, including three buses. The section was left with only one bus. Mr Sinclair stated that two of the buses were used as school buses, but the review team stated that the base was not entitled to them. Mr Sinclair stated that they needed two buses to take the children to school, which they had been doing for years. Mr Sinclair stated that when the Company Commander came back from leave he “blew his stack” at these developments. The consequence of this was that his section could not do the work required. Mr Sinclair stated that he did not know how the children coped without the school buses, because he left the RAAF soon after that. Mr Sinclair felt that he was made the scapegoat for what happened with the vehicles.
26. Mr Sinclair stated that his Term of Engagement with the RAAF ended on 7 October 1987. Mr Sinclair had approached the Squadron Leader prior to this time requesting that he remain in the RAAF for a further 15 months until he was 55 years of age, which was the retirement age. Mr Sinclair stated that he liked the RAAF and enjoyed the work. The Squadron Leader told him that he would not recommend him, but would not say why. Mr Sinclair stated that in 1986/87, he was diagnosed with hypertension, but he does not think his health was the reason for his discharge. Mr Sinclair thought it was because the Commander was angry about losing the vehicles from the section and that he thought it was Mr Sinclair’s fault. Mr Sinclair felt that the Squadron Leader was trying to push him out. Mr Sinclair stated that on the day the Squadron Leader told him he would not recommend him for an extension of his contract, he left work early, went home and started to drink. Mr Sinclair stated that he was not drinking heavily before that event and only used to have a drink or two in the mess.
27. Mr Sinclair was asked to clarify his promotional history within the transport section of the RAAF. He stated that he began as an Aircraftsman, being promoted to Leading Aircraftsman in 1966/67. In 1977, Mr Sinclair became a Corporal, then was promoted to Sergeant in 1980 and Flight Sergeant in 1986. He stated that he was happy with this career path. Mr Sinclair noted that there was also a possibility that he would have been promoted to Warrant Officer, but this would not have been until after his discharge date.
28. Following his discharge, Mr Sinclair travelled through Scotland for one month, taking his wife Margaret for a holiday. Mr Sinclair stated that when they returned to Australia, he borrowed his step-daughter’s caravan and then he and Mrs Sinclair travelled up the Eastern coast of Australia with the caravan. He decided to settle in Hervey Bay, Queensland. Mr Sinclair stated that he did not give Margaret a choice as to where they would live, he had decided this was to be the place. Mr Sinclair stated that they initially rented accommodation, subsequently building a house in Hervey Bay. Mr Sinclair stated that he coped to a certain extent when they reached Hervey Bay. Mr Sinclair obtained employment from 1989 until 1998 at “Hervey Bay Coaches” which is now called “Wide Bay Coaches”.. Mr Sinclair stated that he left this employment at the usual retirement age but would have liked to have kept on with the buses.
29. In 1989, Mr Sinclair’s general practitioner in Hervey Bay, Dr Tate, recommended he consult Psychiatrist, Dr Rowntree. Mr Sinclair stated that he was subsequently prescribed medication for mood swings, anger and depression. Mr Sinclair stated that Margaret and he were arguing a lot and he was very irritable. Margaret told him he was getting angry and depressed and that he had to do something. Mr Sinclair stated that when he was with his first wife, Anne, they had arguments, but nothing like the ones he then had with his second wife, Margaret. Mr Sinclair thought that Dr Rowntree may also have spoken to Margaret. After Dr Tate left Hervey Bay, Mr Sinclair saw Dr Potter. Mr Sinclair thought that Dr Potter prescribed “Efexor” and medication for his hypertension.
30. Currently, Mr Sinclair has difficulty with his memory, he stated. For example, he does not know when his great grandson’s and grand-daughter’s birthdays are. He stated that he is better at recalling matters a long time ago than he is with his short-term memory.
31. Mr Sinclair was asked which experience of those he had described on service was worst for him and he stated that the death of his wife was the worst of all the landmarks in his life. Mr Sinclair also stated that his experience in East Sale in 1986 was possibly the most severe. Also, his experience in Glenbrook in 1982 was one of his worst moments, he stated. This was at a time when he was experiencing difficulties with his de facto relationship. In 1982, Mr Sinclair stated that he first sought psychiatric assistance from Dr Robinson and he continued to consult Dr Robinson regularly. It was noted however that Dr Robinson did not mention anything in the documents about Mr Sinclair’s difficulties with the Warrant Officer although Mr Sinclair stated that the relationship with the Warrant Officer started to go wrong in 1984. In other evidence, Mr Sinclair noted difficulties in 1982. In his counselling with Dr Robinson, Mr Sinclair could not recall whether or not he mentioned anything about his superior officer giving him a hard time. Mr Sinclair stated that there was a rumour that that Warrant Officer liked to upset people, but that was just a rumour, he stated. Mr Sinclair stated that his de facto relationship broke down before the Warrant Officer issue.
32. Mr Sinclair described the periods that he considers are significant in relation to his depression. Mr Sinclair stated that he first became depressed in 1971 when his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. In 1979 when his wife died, he received treatment for depression, but this only lasted a couple of months. In 1982 he had problems with his Warrant Officer. Mr Sinclair was referred to T8, p65, where it appears that in 1982 he was prescribed “Allegron” 25 mgs, by Dr Robinson. Mr Sinclair stated that that was possible, but he could not recall. Mr Sinclair also informed the Tribunal that in 1982, he was just commencing a relationship with another woman. He stated that at some point he did speak to Dr Robinson about the problems he later experienced in his de facto relationship. Mr Sinclair stated that 1982 was probably about the same depression level as in 1985 and in East Sale in 1987, when he was told he would not be kept on. It was put to Mr Sinclair by the Respondent that his depression has sometimes been due to relationships and sometimes due to stresses in the workforce.
EVIDENCE OF MARGARET THERESE SINCLAIR
33. Mrs Sinclair stated that she met Mr Sinclair just before Christmas 1984 when she was working at the Richmond Bus Company. Mrs Sinclair stated that after this, Mr Sinclair would ask her to go to the club with him for a drink or a dance. They did this on quite a few occasions, Mrs Sinclair stated. Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal that she formed the opinion that Mr Sinclair was a person of good character. When she first met him, Mr Sinclair was very kind and would not intentionally hurt anyone. Mrs Sinclair knew of the death of Mr Sinclair’s first wife and she had met some of Mr Sinclair’s family in Adelaide. Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal that she did not know about Mr Sinclair’s previous de facto relationship. He is a person who keeps a lot of things to himself, Mrs Sinclair explained. He did talk about his first wife and dealing with her illness and death. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair told her that he went through a very hard time then and Mrs Sinclair expressed the view that such events could not be cut out of one’s life completely.
34. Mr and Mrs Sinclair were becoming serious in their relationship in 1985. Mr Sinclair then moved to East Sale in the beginning of 1986 and Mrs Sinclair used to travel to visit him in East Sale almost every weekend. Mrs Sinclair stated that she thought initially that Mr Sinclair was going to East Sale on a short-term basis for a course. The couple was engaged in March 1986. Mrs Sinclair stated that she married Mr Sinclair in about July 1986. Mrs Sinclair then moved to East Sale with Mr Sinclair. Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal that she found living on the Base very different from her previous life. After she had been there one or two weeks, Mrs Sinclair was told by Mr Sinclair’s “boss” that she was married to the RAAF. Mrs Sinclair stated that there were many restrictions and that she was not used to this way of life. Mrs Sinclair stated that it was difficult for her.
35. Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal that her husband used to tell her that things were not as happy in the transport section as they seemed. Mrs Sinclair stated that there were “jumped up young officers” who were trying to do things differently, and putting pressure on Mr Sinclair to be harder on his men. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair was the one that got into trouble if their division did not run properly. Mrs Sinclair stated that when Mr Sinclair had the vehicles taken from his section towards the end of 1986, this was hard for him and he was angry because he could not run the division to the same high standard. Mrs Sinclair stated that her husband would not talk to her much about these problems and it was very difficult between them following this incident. Mrs Sinclair stated that before this incident, she and her husband used to have barbeques at their house. After he lost the transport vehicles, he did not want to socialise any more and, Mrs Sinclair stated, he would just sit and would not talk.
36. Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal that she and her husband bought a boat in 1986 so that they could get away from the base on weekends and relax. Mrs Sinclair felt that this helped their relationship as they were having some difficulties. When Mr Sinclair was on the boat he relaxed, but when they were back on the base on Sunday night, the moods and tension would start up again, Mrs Sinclair stated.
37. Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal that in 1987, Mr Sinclair was sent to see a dietician. Mrs Sinclair stated that she did not know his blood pressure was elevated until he was diagnosed with diabetes. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair was somewhat overweight and he drank “quite a bit” of alcohol.
38. Just prior to 7 October 1987, Mr Sinclair found out that he was being discharged on that date. On the day he found out about this, Mrs Sinclair was at home with a friend who had visited from Sydney. Mr Sinclair came home early that afternoon, stormed into the house and told Mrs Sinclair “That’s it, I’m out. They’re throwing me out”.. He told her that they would not let him stay on until he was 55 years old. Mr Sinclair believed that he was unable to continue work until he was aged 55 years, because his bosses did not want him to continue. Mrs Sinclair stated that the men in his section also thought the superior officers were out to get Mr Sinclair. Mrs Sinclair recalls that on that particular afternoon, she saw her husband drinking. That weekend, he also drank more than usual, Mrs Sinclair stated. Mrs Sinclair had no idea that the problems he was having at work were as bad as they were and explained to the Tribunal that her husband loved the RAAF and he wanted to stay because the Airforce was his life. Mrs Sinclair stated that it was worse for him to leave the RAAF early in 1987, than it was dealing with the conflict in the RAAF prior to discharge. In this regard, Mrs Sinclair spoke about the adverse letter the Warrant Officer from Glenbrook sent to East Sale. Mr Sinclair was furious about that but Mrs Sinclair further explained that her husband believed that one did not complain to the hierarchy as it was not the correct approach. He told her “you have to put up with it no matter what”.. He knew he could not do anything about it, and that it was part of the job. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair was not told exactly what his health situation was. She stated that it was her belief that the RAAF normally extended people until they were 55 years old. Mr Sinclair’s expectation was that it was usual to be extended.
39. Mrs Sinclair stated that it was “fiery” when they left East Sale. It was also very sudden and Mr and Mrs Sinclair had no plans. Mr and Mrs Sinclair went to see a Senior Officer to receive help with their post-RAAF plans and they also consulted a Financial Planner in East Sale. Mrs Sinclair decided to sell her house and Mr Sinclair decided to keep his for a while longer. They did not know where they were going to live. Mrs Sinclair stated that they decided to go to Scotland for Christmas. After this holiday, the couple travelled up the East coast of Australia and at the end of January 1988, they reached Hervey Bay in Queensland and Mr Sinclair decided that they would stay there. Mr Sinclair obtained a job as a bus driver and they stayed for 13 years. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair was a person who needs security and a “base”. She stated that that was why he loved the RAAF and the reason he then took on employment with the Bus Company in Hervey Bay.
40. Mrs Sinclair stated that it “got pretty bad” at Hervey Bay. Mr Sinclair went through mood changes and his drinking became worse. Mrs Sinclair stated that this was because he had lost everything that he wanted to do. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair blamed her for everything and no matter what she did, it would not be right. Mrs Sinclair accompanied Mr Sinclair to consult with Dr Tate and he was subsequently referred to Dr Rowntree. No matter what she did, it would never be right, Mrs Sinclair told the Tribunal. Mrs Sinclair later saw Anne Rowntree, a psychologist, who told her that it was not her fault and said that Mr Sinclair had had deep-seated problems for quite a while. Following Mr Sinclair’s consultation with Dr Rowntree, he was prescribed “Tofranil” which helped at first, but after approximately four to five months, the depression returned. Mrs Sinclair stated that Mr Sinclair’s depression has been there ever since the RAAF. Mr Sinclair is presently taking two tablets for his depression, “Efexor” and “Kalma”. Mrs Sinclair stated that she did not know that Mr Sinclair was consulting a psychiatrist during his RAAF service. In 1988/89 Mr Sinclair was diagnosed with hypertension.
41. Mrs Sinclair stated that she does not think her husband has major problems now and he has settled down somewhat. Mrs Sinclair stated also that Mr Sinclair would only talk with her about what was happening at the particular time.
EVIDENCE OF DR A DINNEN, CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST
42. Dr Dinnen examined Mr Sinclair on 27 June 2002 and provided a report dated 3 July 2002 (Exhibit A2). Dr Dinnen reported that Mr Sinclair told him that his problems were with drinking and depression. Dr Dinnen noted that Mr Sinclair described being unable to get on with one of his sergeants in 1966 and having stomach or nerve trouble in 1967 or 1968. However, Dr Dinnen noted the main problem later on for Mr Sinclair was with his superiors. Dr Dinnen reported that Mr Sinclair was stationed at Glenbrook in 1981/2 and had problems with the officers there, who “reckoned he wasn’t doing the job right”. The Squadron Leader was getting him to do the Squadron Leader’s work as well as Mr Sinclair having to complete his own work. Mr Sinclair went to the Wing Commander who sorted it out, Dr Dinnen reported. Dr Dinnen noted that Mr Sinclair told him that “ it depressed me a bit”.. Dr Dinnen noted that Mr Sinclair told him that his drinking started when his wife died in 1979, then eased off and started again when he moved to Glenbrook.
43. Dr Dinnen reported that the second time Mr Sinclair was stationed at Glenbrook in 1984, he had a problem with a Warrant Officer. Mr Sinclair told Dr Dinnen that he and the Warrant Officer got on really well at first, then for some reason they started to clash. From Glenbrook, Mr Sinclair was posted to East Sale where he had a problem with the Flight Sergeant, Dr Dinnen noted. This was because the Warrant Officer from Glenbrook had sent the Flight Sergeant in East Sale, a nasty letter about Mr Sinclair. Mr Sinclair told Dr Dinnen that this also depressed him.
44. Dr Dinnen noted one further incident when Mr Sinclair was in East Sale in 1986, when a team came from Canberra with a specific mission of taking vehicles from Mr Sinclair’s section. Mr Sinclair stated that he was unhappy about the vehicles being removed, particularly the buses. Another problem Mr Sinclair reported was that the officer in charge of his section refused to recommend his extension beyond the term of his engagement. At that time, Mr Sinclair had 18 months before he reached the retirement age of 55 years. Mr Sinclair told Dr Dinnen that the officer would not recommend him because he blamed Mr Sinclair for losing all the vehicles.
45. In relation to Mr Sinclair’s history of treatment, Dr Dinnen noted that Mr Sinclair recalled treatment for depression in East Sale in 1986. Mr Sinclair did not recall being treated for anxiety and depression in 1975. Mr Dinnen, however, questioned Mr Sinclair about whether there was a relationship between his wife’s breast cancer and his treatment for anxiety and depression in 1975, and Mr Sinclair replied “that’s right, yes”, and told Dr Dinnen that that was at Richmond and they put him on pills and Tryptanol.. Dr Dinnen noted that Mr Sinclair saw a psychiatrist, Dr Rowntree, in Hervey Bay in 1989 and last saw him in 1990. At the time of Dr Dinnen’s interview with Mr Sinclair, Mr Sinclair was taking one Efexor tablet daily and seeing his General Practitioner, Dr Witt, in Lismore.
46. Dr Dinnen recorded that the documentation available to him indicated a long history of treatment for depression and anxiety commencing in the seventies, coincident with the lengthy terminal illness of his first wife, and according to Mr Sinclair, related to some conflict with his superiors in the RAAF. Dr Dinnen noted that Mr Sinclair presents as having a controlled depressive illness, and is on maintenance antidepressant medication. Dr Dinnen recorded that he was satisfied that the appropriate diagnosis is depressive disorder, and noted the Statement of Principles in relation to that condition. Dr Dinnen noted that for Mr Sinclair’s depressive illness to be attributable to service, he must have experienced a “severe psychosocial stressor” and Dr Dinnen recorded that he, as was the case with Dr Jenkins and Dr Keightley, was unable to as yet identify such factors. Dr Dinnen noted however, that it appears to be well established that Mr Sinclair’s disorder came to attention while he was serving in the RAAF, and that there my well be more information in the service documentation which could shed light on any psychosocial stressors related to his work in the RAAF over a period of 22 years.
EVIDENCE OF DR R LEWIN, CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST
47. Dr Lewin examined Mr Sinclair on 28 June 2002 and provided a report dated 1 July 2002 (Exhibit R1). In relation to Mr Sinclair’s military history, Dr Lewin reported that Mr Sinclair was stationed at Butterworth in Malaya for two and a half years and that he reported a single bad experience while he was in Malaya. This was in relation to being judged harshly by a superior officer, a transport officer, regarding his annual assessment. Mr Sinclair reported his view to a higher officer, and following this Mr Sinclair told Dr Lewin that the transport officer made life difficult for him.
48. Dr Lewin reported that Mr Sinclair returned to Australia in 1972, and described a difficult time managing his first wife’s illness and her eventual death in 1979. Dr Lewin noted that in 1981, Mr Sinclair served at Glenbrook where he encountered a conflict with a Squadron leader, with whom he “did not see eye to eye” and argued. These problems were eventually smoothed over by a Wing Commander. Dr Lewin noted another conflict with a Warrant Officer Rowe, in relation to an adverse performance report, and Mr Sinclair told him he was furious in response to this. Mr Rowe sent a nasty letter to East Sale when Mr Sinclair was transferred there. The Flight Sergeant in East Sale told Mr Sinclair he would not take any notice of the letter, and Mr Sinclair was himself later promoted in East Sale to Flight Sergeant.
49. Dr Lewin noted that Mr Sinclair described the onset of a range of symptoms at the time of the diagnosis of his first wife’s condition in 1971. Mr Sinclair felt depressed but also felt obliged to control his feelings in order to support his family, Dr Lewin noted. Mr Sinclair reported irritability and depressed mood and described grieving his wife’s death. Dr Lewin noted that a military record of a consultation with Mr Sinclair in 1979 described increased alcohol consumption, reduced appetite, weight loss and an erectile problem over a period of three years. Dr Lewin recorded that these features are strongly suggestive of a depressive condition. Dr Lewin recorded that further depressive symptoms were reported after the conflict with the superior officer at Glenbrook in 1981.
50. Dr Lewin noted that Mr Sinclair was first treated with antidepressant medication in 1975, and he took this medication again in 1984 and 1985, there was a recurrence of the illness in 1987. In 1989 Mr Sinclair first saw psychiatrist, Dr Rowntree, in Hervey Bay and Mr Sinclair has been on antidepressant medication since 1989.
51. Dr Lewin noted the Statement of Principles regarding Depressive Disorder and referred to his diagnosis, that of recurrent Episodes of Major Depression, which at the present time appears to be in remission. Dr Lewin reported that Mr Sinclair’s depressive condition appears to have arisen within the context of his emotional reaction to the death of his first wife, Anne. Dr Lewin noted that it is likely that Mr Sinclair’s condition was already evident prior to his first wife’s death, particularly following the diagnosis of her terminal illness. Dr Lewin reported that although Mr Sinclair described the onset of symptoms in 1971, it is unclear whether he had a full episode of Major Depression at that time. He was first treated for a depressive illness in 1975, Dr Lewin noted. Dr Lewin noted that he had considered the definition of severe psychosocial stressor and that this includes death of a relative.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
52. Mr Winship for the Applicant, submitted that the diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition is depression, and for this the Applicant relied on the recent medico-legal reports in addition to Mr and Mrs Sinclair’s evidence. In relation to the diagnosis proffered by Dr W C Keightley in his report of 10 March 1999 (T12, p96-99), of “Major affective disorder, depressed type recurrent without psychotic features”, Mr Winship submitted that this diagnosis was not correct and furthermore Dr Keightley did not have before him the totality of the evidence that the Tribunal had received. Mr Winship submitted that the onset of the condition of depressive disorder was 1982 as supported by a clinical note of Dr Robinson dated 30 March 1982. Mr Winship submitted that in 1985 there were additional incidents that “consolidated” Mr Sinclair’s depression.
53. In relation to the report of Dr S M Jenkins, Psychiatrist, dated 15 November 1999 (Exhibit R3), Mr Winship submitted that Dr Jenkins relied only on the information provided by Mr Sinclair. While Dr Jenkins recorded that Mr Sinclair denied any: sleep or appetite disturbance; significant difficulties with concentration; nightmares or intrusive images or significant suicidal ideation; it should be taken into consideration that Mr Sinclair had difficulties with recollections. In relation to Dr Jenkins’ comments regarding the difficulties Mr Sinclair experienced from lack of support from his supervisors, Mr Winship contended that Dr Jenkins was merely making a subjective judgment in relation to his comments as to the success of a claim.
54. Mr Winship submitted that the history recorded by Dr Dinnen is reliable and his comments should be taken into consideration. However, Mr Winship reiterated that the totality of the evidence that was before the Tribunal was not apparent to any of the doctors who reported on Mr Sinclair. Furthermore, Mr Winship contended that one and a half hours consultation with a doctor was insufficient to obtain the evidence and cover documentary material that was available to the Tribunal during a one day hearing. While expert evidence such as medical opinion provides some guidance, Mr Winship submitted that the Tribunal’s decision must be based on the application of the law and the legal instrument of the Statement of Principles to the material before it. Mr Winship referred the Tribunal to Re Repatriation Commission and Falkner (1987) 12 ALD 87, which lends support to the principal that even if the medical and scientific evidence does not entirely support the existence of a condition or circumstance relevant to a particular case, the law recognises that one cannot be satisfied in an absolute sense, but that it is sufficient, dealing with defence service, to be satisfied that the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that a certain state exists. Also in Re Easton and Repatriation Commission (1987) 12 ALD 777 that Tribunal found at 778 :
“Thus although a matter must be decided to the Tribunal’s reasonable satisfaction this did not require certainty on the balance of probabilities, or on a preponderance of probability, according to the nature of the case. The fact that medical and scientific evidence did not always provide clear answers to questions did not necessarily mean that a court or tribunal could not reach a state of reasonable satisfaction in respect of such matters.”
55. The Applicant contended that Mr Sinclair’s depression is a defence-caused disease attributable to service. The relevant Statement of Principles is Instrument Number 59 of 1998 concerning Depressive Disorder, Mr Winship submitted. Mr Winship contended that the Applicant meets Factor 5(a) of the Statement of Principles, or in the alternative Factor 5(e) which state:
“Factors
5...
(a) experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors within the
one year immediately before the clinical onset of depressive
disorder; or
…
(e) experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors within the
one year immediately before the clinical worsening of depressive
disorder; or
...
“severe psychosocial stressor” means an identifiable occurrence that
evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being
shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault
(including sexual assault), severe illness or injury, experiencing a loss
such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial
problems or legal problems;
... “
56. In relation to the onset of Mr Sinclair’s depressive condition, Mr Winship contended that this is 1982, and referred to the notes of Dr Robinson, who Mr Winship submitted diagnosed depression and prescribed the antidepressant medication Allegron in 1982 (T8, p65). The condition increased or worsened in 1985, Mr Winship submitted, with Mr Sinclair seeking psychiatric assistance. Mr Winship further submitted that Mr Sinclair did not suffer from significant depression following his first wife’s death in 1979 and he “got over this”.
57. Mr Winship contended that Mr Sinclair only started taking antidepressants following the incidents he has referred to which occurred during his service. Mr Winship conceded that there is an overlay of “relationship” difficulties during Mr Sinclair’s service, but that these relationship difficulties were also with the men he worked with during Service. Mr Winship submitted that Mr Sinclair’s condition worsened in 1985, when he again sought psychiatric assistance.
58. Mr Winship contended that the Applicant suffered severe psychosocial stressors as defined in the Statement of Principles, Instrument Number 59 of 1998, being the work-related incidents he has described from 1982 onwards. Mr Winship submitted that Mr Sinclair met the definition of a severe psychosocial stressor in relation to the example provided in the definition of “loss of employment”, being the incident in East Sale when he was not allowed to extend his service for another 15 months to the retirement age of 55 years as he had expected. He suffered significant loss as he had wanted to continue in the RAAF and he also lost the security that the RAAF provided.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
59. Ms Hook submitted that the Respondent relies on the report of Dr Dinnen dated 3 July 2002 (Exhibit A2) in which Dr Dinnen found that he was unable to identify any factors which would enable Mr Sinclair to meet the relevant Statement of Principles requirement of suffering a “severe psychosocial stressor”.. Ms Hook submitted that the Applicant was asked by the Tribunal whether the report of Dr Dinnen was complete in the history that had been taken in relation to Mr Sinclair, and Mr Winship for the Applicant had agreed that he had nothing further to add. Ms Hook further contended that Dr Dinnen is very experienced in the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and particularly in the Veterans’ law jurisdiction, he is well recognised as an expert in the application of Statements of Principles with their factors and diagnostic criteria.
60. Ms Hook submitted that the Respondent further relies on the report of Dr Lewin dated 1 July 2002. Dr Lewin found a severe psychosocial stressor in relation to the death of Mr Sinclair’s first wife (Exhibit R1). Ms Hook submitted that Mr Sinclair was provided at Hearing with a time line of difficulties in his personal and service life, and Mr Sinclair’s response was that the death of his first wife was the most significant event in his life. Ms Hook referred the Tribunal to Mr Sinclair’s visible distress when discussing this sad event.
61. Ms Hook submitted that the correct diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition was depressive disorder and that in relation to the date of onset, this was in 1979. The cause of Mr Sinclair’s depression at that time was the death of his first wife. The incidents during Mr Sinclair’s service, Ms Hook submitted, have occurred to a man who has suffered a continuous illness from at least 1979.
62. Ms Hook further submitted that the Respondent does not concede that the incidents during Mr Sinclair’s service caused an aggravation of his depression. Rather, Ms Hook contended that Mr Sinclair’s post-1979-depression caused both personal and relationship difficulties and work stresses.
63. In relation to the Applicant’s submissions about Mr Sinclair’s discharge and that this loss of employment was a severe psychosocial stressor, Ms Hook submitted that this did not meet the Statement of Principles’ definition of “severe psychosocial stressor”.. In this regard, Ms Hook noted that no one knows the reason that Mr Sinclair was not continued on until he was 55 years of age. There is nothing to suggest either disciplinary or health problems. Furthermore, Mr Sinclair knew of the date of termination of his engagement after 22 years in the RAAF.
FINDINGS
64. The Tribunal has reached a decision in this matter taking into account the legislation, the oral and documentary evidence, the submissions and the case law.
65. The Tribunal considers that Mr and Mrs Sinclair provided truthful evidence to the best of their recollection and finds that they were witnesses of credit. There was some difficulty with Mr Sinclair’s recollections about his service in 1982 and 1984 in Glenbrook, but any inconsistency in the evidence concerning this period is not indicative in any way of Mr Sinclair attempting to mislead the Tribunal.
66. The first issue for the Tribunal to determine is the correct diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition. The Board found that the correct diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s condition is “major affective disorder depressed type recurrent without psychotic features” (T15). Dr Dinnen diagnosed depressive disorder (Exhibit A2) and Dr Lewin diagnosed recurrent uni-polar major depressive disorder (Exhibit R1). Considering the evidence, the expert medical opinion and the diagnostic criteria contained within the relevant Statement of Principles concerning Depressive Disorder at paragraph 2(a) and (b), the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the correct diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition is depressive disorder.
67. Factors 5(a) and 5(e) have been contended by the Applicant as supporting a defence-caused depressive disorder condition. In order for Factor 5(a) to be met, Mr Sinclair must be able to show on the balance of probabilities that a severe psychosocial stressor/s was/were experienced within the one year before the onset of depressive disorder.
68. The onset of depressive disorder has been given different dates by various doctors/psychiatrists. Dr J Potter, General Practitioner, on 21 April 1999, opined that the onset of depression was in the mid 1970s and he was treated with Tryptanol at that time, with the stressor prior to onset being stresses at work with superiors criticising him (T10, p75). There was a worsening, Dr Potter reported, in the 1980’s following the death of Mr Sinclair’s first wife in February 1979 (T10, p76). This was a stressor, Dr Potter opined, that occurred within two years of the clinical worsening of depression. Mr Sinclair’s claim lodged on 2 March 1999 confirmed the onset of depression in the 1970s with treatment reported to be Aropax 20mg at that time (T8, p42). The onset was believed by Mr Sinclair to be related to lack of cooperation and harassment by supervisors mainly in the 1980s and up to discharge. Dr Potter reported in the claim that the depression was “accentuated by wife’s death in’79. Treated in RAAF.”
69. On 10 March 1999, Dr W C Keightley provided a Psychiatric Assessment reporting that Mr Sinclair experienced the onset of his first episode of anxiety and depression in 1975 (T12, p96). Mr Sinclair associated his symptoms with the difficulties and frustration of “carrying out his assignment as the chief of the transport section of the East Sale Air Force base” (T12, p96). The Tribunal notes that Mr Sinclair was in East Sale in 1986, not 1975, as was highlighted by Dr Dinnen in his report, addressing the issues raised in the report of Dr Keightley. Dr Keightley opined that it was not clear that Mr Sinclair developed his depression because of service (T12, p99).
70. Earlier, on 18 June 1985, Dr Robinson, a RAAF Medical Officer, referred Mr Sinclair for psychiatric assessment and it was noted by the psychiatrist that Mr Sinclair was having a difficult time dealing with the breakdown of his relationship with his de facto wife (T3, p19). There was a diagnosis of depression by Dr Robinson on 30 March 1982 with the prescription of Allegron (T8, p65) . Dr Dinnen diagnosed depression with an onset in the 1970’s coincident with the terminal illness of his first wife and related to conflict with his superiors in the RAAF. Dr Lewin opined an onset of Mr Sinclair’s depressive condition prior to his first wife’s death noting the first treatment for depression in 1975, as reported by Dr Keightley on 10 March 1999. Dr Lewin noted that Mr Sinclair felt depressed and angry at the time of the diagnosis of his first wife’s cancer. Certainly by December 1979, the date of his first wife’s death, Dr Lewin opined that Mr Sinclair’s depressive condition was clearly established. On a consideration of all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the onset of Mr Sinclair’s depressive condition may have commenced in 1971 consequent on his first wife’s diagnosis of breast cancer. The Tribunal further finds that by 1975 depression was certainly apparent and being treated at this time by antidepressants. While in the service documents available to the Tribunal, there appears to be no primary source such as a clinical note recording this treatment, the Tribunal is satisfied by the information that Mr Sinclair provided to Dr Potter, Dr Dinnen and Dr Lewin that he was being treated at that time. Mr Sinclair’s own evidence of how he was at that time, furthermore, support’s the Tribunal’s view that there was an onset of depression by 1975.
71. Factor 5(a) of the relevant Statement of Principles concerning Depressive Disorder requires the experiencing of a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors within one year prior to the onset of depressive disorder, which in this case has been taken by the Tribunal to be by 1975. Certainly the diagnosis of Mrs Sinclair’s breast cancer could be considered a severe psychosocial stressor. However, such a psychosocial stressor is not causally related to Mr Sinclair’s defence service, with the only connection being a temporal one. The Tribunal notes the decision in Holthouse v Repatriation Commission (1982) 1 RPD 287 in which it was found that a disease, injury or indeed, death, which occurred while a person was engaged in the services was not necessarily related to service, for example, if it related to the person’s personal but not professional life. Mr Sinclair’s evidence was that his first wife’s illness and subsequent death was by far the worst stressor he experienced during service.
72. On all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the onset of Mr Sinclair’s depression by 1975 was due to the diagnosis and subsequent illness of his first wife with breast cancer, the illness that eventually killed her. Mrs Sinclair’s illness is a severe psychosocial stressor and the Tribunal could even accept the onset of the condition within the timeframe required, within one year of the occurrence of the severe psychosocial stressor. However, the severe psychosocial stressor is not related to service and hence pursuant to subsection 120(4) of the Act, on the balance of probabilities the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that Factor 5(a) is not met. The Tribunal is confirmed in its view on this issue not only by Mr Sinclair’s evidence but by that of Dr Dinnen, Dr Lewin and Dr Potter.
73. Mr Sinclair also contends that his depression relates to his treatment at the hands of superior officers firstly in Glenbrook in 1982 and 1984 and later in East Sale. By this stage his depression had had its onset. Thus, the Tribunal must consider whether or not the already existing depression, not causally related to service, was worsened in a material way within one year of experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors, by Mr Sinclair’s service. Considering the definition of severe psychosocial stressor the Tribunal does not consider that the conflict with superior officers described by Mr Sinclair falls into the category of severe psychosocial stressor. It is the Tribunal’s view that a severe psychosocial stressor as defined in paragraph 8 of the relevant Statement of Principles contemplates stressors of the magnitude which indicate a harshness, gravity and extreme seriousness as denoted by the examples given within the definition being that of death, assault, divorce or loss of employment. Conflict occasionally with superiors is not, in the Tribunal’s view, a severe psychosocial stressor. This is also the view taken by Dr Dinnen and Dr Lewin and tentatively by Dr Keightley, who while referring to Mr Sinclair’s conflict with other Defence Force personnel, questioned whether or not that could be linked to Mr Sinclair’s depression.
74. Mr Sinclair has also contended that his discharge from the RAAF is a severe psychosocial stressor because his expectation was that he would continue in the RAAF until retirement age at 55 years. This contention was not mentioned in Mr Sinclair’s claim, nor by Dr Potter in the “Medical Report-Development of Depressive Disorder” accompanying Mr Sinclair’s claim (T10, pp75-77).
75. The Tribunal finds that Mr Sinclair knew of the length of his engagement with the RAAF. While it is accepted that he was disappointed that his career with the RAAF was to end, it was not unexpected and Mr Sinclair went on to find satisfying employment in civilian life. Even if the Tribunal found that the occasional conflict with superior personnel or the expiration of Mr Sinclair’s term of engagement could be considered to be severe psychosocial stressors, which it does not, the Tribunal has no evidence of a worsening of depression materially contributed to by the conflict with the superior officers or the cessation of employment, within one year of the occurrence of those events. Dr Potter referred to a worsening of Mr Sinclair’s depression in the 1980’s following an onset in the 1970’s arising out of stresses at work with supervisors. The Tribunal has already found that the onset of Mr Sinclair’s depression by 1975 was related to the life threatening illness of his wife as supported overwhelmingly by the evidence, especially that of Mr Sinclair. The death of Mrs Sinclair is the next severe psychosocial stressor to confront Mr Sinclair in 1979.
76. To make a finding that the conflict Mr Sinclair experienced at work or the expiration of his term of employment were severe psychosocial stressors is not as has already been stated, in the Tribunal’s view, consistent with the definition of a severe psychosocial stressor. Furthermore, in the Tribunal’s view, it would be extremely speculative and not pointed to by the material to find that there had been a worsening of Mr Sinclair’s depression within one year of experiencing conflict or leaving the RAAF. What is more obvious and significant, from Mr Sinclair’s evidence and objective medical and other reporting from service documents, is that the death of Mr Sinclair’s first wife and the breakup of a subsequent de facto relationship had a direct causal relationship to his depression. Notwithstanding that the Tribunal does not consider that the conflict with officers as described by Mr Sinclair or the cessation of employment constitute severe psychosocial stressors, the Tribunal considers that there is also insufficient evidence that there was a clinical worsening of depression.
77. In such circumstances the Tribunal finds that pursuant to subsection 120(4) of the Act, Factor 5(e) is not met. The Tribunal is also reasonably satisfied on all the available evidence that none of the other Factors apply.
78. Accordingly for all the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal decides that:
(a)the diagnosis of Mr Sinclair’s psychiatric condition is varied from “major affective disorder depressed type recurrent without psychotic features” to “depressive disorder”;
(b)the condition of depressive disorder is not defence-caused; and
(c) the decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 78 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of: Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member and Dr P D Lynch, Member
Signed: .......................................................................................
AssociateDate of Hearing 17 January 2003
Date of Decision 16 May 2003
Representative for the Applicant Mr B Winship, Rockliffs Solicitors
Representative for the Respondent Ms P Hook, Departmental Advocate
0