Stevenson and Repatriation Commission

Case [2006] AATA 60


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 60

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/932

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

)

Re DAPHNE STEVENSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member

Date27 January 2006 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

..........[Sgd]...........

SC Fisher
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – application for war-widows pension – operational service – claim conditions were war-caused – application of Statement of Principles – depressive disorder – ischaemic heart disease – psycho-social stressor – decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6, 7, 8, 120, 120A, 196B

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy [1998] FCA 809
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
Hillier and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 77 ALD 67
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Repatriation Commission v Cornelius (2002) FCA 750
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1832
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 412
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321
Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Fenner v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 27
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Parnell-Schoeneveld v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 153; (2003) 74 ALD 37 Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892
Re Ahrenfeld and Repatriation Commission (1992) 28 ALD 921
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356
Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331

REASONS FOR DECISION

27 January 2006 Mr SC Fisher, Member   

Introduction And Background

1.      Mr Norman Aitken Stevenson (the veteran) served with the Royal Australian Army from 24 April 1941 until through November 1945.  The veteran served in Dutch New Guinea and Morotai from 30 January 1945 until 30 June 1945 (also a period of operational service).  The veteran was born on 10 November 1921 and died on 9 May 1985 aged 63 years.

Jurisdiction

2.      This appeal is governed by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Tribunal has jurisdiction in this appeal by virtue of sections 174 - 176 of the Act. In these Reasons for Decision, references to statutory provisions are to provisions of the Act unless the context indicates otherwise.

The Decision under Review

3.      The decision under review is a decision made by the Repatriation Commission (the Respondent) on 14 January 2003 refusing the claim of Mrs Daphne Stevenson that the death of her late husband, Mr Norman Stevenson, was service related.  The 14 January 2003 decision was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 2 September 2004.  The Applicant appealed to this Tribunal on 7 December 2004.

The Role of the Tribunal

4. The role of the Tribunal…

Continue reading Stevenson and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stevenson and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 60
Case
[2006] AATA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought a war-widow's pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The dispute arose from a decision by the Repatriation Commission that the applicant was not entitled to the pension because her late husband's depressive disorder and ischaemic heart disease were not caused by his operational service. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, specifically whether the depressive disorder and ischaemic heart disease suffered by the applicant's late husband were caused by a psycho-social stressor related to his operational service, thereby qualifying for the pension. The court had to consider relevant case law and statutory provisions, including the application of the Statement of Principles concerning depressive disorder and ischaemic heart disease. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented regarding the applicant's late husband's service history and the medical conditions in question. The court found that the evidence did not support a causal link between the husband's operational service and the conditions that ultimately led to his death. The decision of the Repatriation Commission was affirmed, as the Tribunal found that the evidence did not satisfy the statutory criteria for a war-caused condition.

The final orders were that the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, denying the applicant's claim for a war-widow's pension.

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.