SJCL and Repatriation Commission

[2008] AATA 688

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 688

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/267

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)           & 2006/2600
Re		SJCL

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal  M J Carstairs, Senior Member

Date 6 August 2008

Place Brisbane

Decision

The Tribunal decides as follows:

In application No.  Q2004/267, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

In application No.  2006/2600, the Tribunal sets aside those parts of the decision under review as they relate to post traumatic stress disorder; depressive disorder; and irritable bowel syndrome and substitutes the decision that these conditions are defence-caused. 

With respect to the claim for panic disorder, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

The Tribunal affirms the decision that pension remains payable at 100% of the general rate.    

...................[Sdg]...........................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – diagnoses of conditions – whether conditions are related to applicant’s defence service – if so, whether applicant is entitled to pension at special rate

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 70, 120

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Repatriation Commission v Law (1981) 147 CLR 635
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Mines v Repatriation Commission (2004) 86 LD 62
Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144

Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 August 2008 M J Carstairs, Senior Member

1.      The applicant had two periods of service in the Royal Australian Navy.  She served within Australia, between 1982 and 1986, and then from 23 November 1987 to 9 May 1990.  At the end of the first period of her service she took voluntary discharge.  At the end of the second period she was discharged on medical grounds. 

2.      The applicant’s service, being within Australia, is defence service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).  Defence service attracts the provisions of s 70 of the Act (when assessing a person’s eligibility for pension).  The standard of proof which applies here is that of “reasonable satisfaction” and is found in s 120(4) of the Act.

3.      As is indicated by the separate reference numbers, there are, broadly speaking, two matters under review.  In application 2006/2600, the claim relates to a number of psychiatric conditions, and irritable bowel syndrome.  According to the applicant, all these conditions stem from incidents or events that occurred during her two periods of defence service.  The claim[1], as it was reviewed and taking into account the medical evidence, was for:

§  posts-traumatic stress disorder;

§  depressive disorder;

§  panic disorder with agoraphobia; and

§  irritable bowel syndrome[2].

[1]        Exhibit R 2 at 233-244.

[2]        Exhibit R2 at 203.

4.      I mention the content of the claim, and the diagnoses referred to by the delegate and by the Veterans' Review Board, because the respondent now presses consideration of the question of whether the applicant has a “personality disorder”.  It…