Sparks and Repatriation Commission - [2005] AATA 319

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 319
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2003/965

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re ALEXANDER SPARKS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member P McDermott
Date11 April 2005
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

....................[Sgd].....................
P McDermott
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – application for review of denial of claims for anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, malignant neoplasm of the colon and atrial fibrillation – no reasonable hypothesis connecting experiences during service to any condition – decision under review affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 70, 120B, 196B
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67
Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 707
Williamson and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1185
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinkel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309
REASONS FOR DECISION

11 April 2005 Senior Member P McDermott

1. The applicant seeks review of two decisions made by a delegate of the Respondent. The first decision was made on 20 February 2001 to reject his claim for anxiety disorder, and alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse. The second decision of 20 May 2002 rejected the applicant’s claim for malignant neoplasm of the colon and atrial fibrillation. Both decisions were affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 12 September 2003 on the ground that these conditions were not war-caused or defence caused within the meaning of ss 9 and 70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
Service of Applicant
2. The applicant has extensive service on various ships in the Royal Australian Navy. The applicant has the following eligible service:-
§ Operational Service
Far Eastern Strategic Reserve
§ 17 March 1958 to 3 April 1958
§ 23 April 1958 to 13 May 1958
§ 7 April 1960 to 15 April 1960
§ 6 May 1960 to 2 June 1960
§ 5 January 1961 to 24 January 1961
§ 17 February 1961 to 9 March 1961
§ 25 March 1961 to 17 April 1961
§ 30 November 1961 to 22 December 1961
§ 15 January 1962 to 25 January 1962
§ 29 January 1962 to 24 February 1962
§ 2 March 1962 to 27 March 1962
§ 17 February 1966 to 27 April 1966
§ 9 June 1966 to 16 July 1966
§ 24 July 1966 to 3 August 1966
Vietnam
§25 January 1962 to 29 January 1962
§27 April 1966 to 9 May 1966
§13 April 1967 to 22 April 1967
§28 April 1967 to 5 May 1967
§13 November 1968 to 28 November 1968
§Defence Service
§7 December 1972 to 1 June 1977

Events Experienced by Applicant
3. The applicant gave evidence that he had experienced various events that have caused the various ailments which are the subject of his claim.
4. These events relate to his service as a gunnery rating in Vietnam aboard various ships where he was the director aimer for all the time that he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sparks and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Sparks and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 319
Case: [2005] AATA 319
Decision Date: 11 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Sparks, sought judicial review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission denying his claims for certain veterans' entitlements. The claims in question related to anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence or abuse, malignant neoplasm of the colon, and atrial fibrillation. Mr Sparks argued that these conditions were linked to his experiences during his service. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a reasonable hypothesis connecting the conditions claimed by Mr Sparks to his service. The court was required to review the evidence presented and determine if the Commission's decision to deny the claims was supported by the evidence and consistent with the statutory provisions governing veterans' entitlements. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the Commission had correctly applied the legal principles in evaluating the applicant's claims under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

The court found that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Sparks' conditions to his service. The court considered the medical evidence and the statutory framework, concluding that the Commission had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decision. The court held that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the claimed conditions and Mr Sparks' service, thus affirming the decision of the Commission.

The Federal Court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission. The court found no basis to overturn the Commission's determination that the claimed conditions were not connected to Mr Sparks' service, and therefore dismissed his application for judicial review.

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.