Terence Reason and Repatriation Commission

Case [2013] AATA 882

[2013] AATA 882  

Division VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

File Numbers

2011/4930

2012/5089

Re

Terence Reason

APPLICANT

And

Repatriation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe
Date 11 December 2013
Place Brisbane

The Veterans' Review Board Decision of 16 September 2011 (AAT file number 2011/4930) is set aside and in substitution it is decided the applicant suffers from war-caused PTSD. The decision in relation to the application for a special rate pension is set aside. In substitution it is decided the applicant is entitled to a pension paid at the special rate.

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

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Pensions and Benefits – Pension at the special rate – PTSD diagnosis – Reason for ceasing work – “Alone test” – Decisions under review set aside and varied

LEGISLATION

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 24

CASES

Willis v Repatriation Commission [2012] FCA 399  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

  1. Mr Terence Reason suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), and he cannot work. He has applied for a pension paid at the special rate pursuant to s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Repatriation Commission said Mr Reason is ineligible for a special rate pension because he cannot satisfy the so-called “alone test” in s 24(1)(c). While the Commission now accepts Mr Reason’s PTSD is an obstacle to him continuing work, they argued other factors contributed to his decision to cease work in 2011. Mr Reason disagrees and he has asked the Tribunal to revisit the issue.

    THE FACTS

  2. The factual background to the dispute is uncontroversial. Mr Reason was a soldier. He served in Vietnam in 1969-1970 where he experienced events that caused him to develop PTSD. (The Veterans’ Review Board concluded the applicant suffered from anxiety disorder, but the Commission has now accepted the correct diagnosis is PTSD.) He enjoyed a distinguished military career following his return to Australia. He retired with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in 1988, although he continued to be engaged in the Reserves until 1999.

  3. Mr Reason developed high-level expertise in information technology management while he was in the Army. He continued that work as a consultant after he left the military. One of his clients was the Noosa Shire Council. He also ran a small business selling and erecting steel sheds for a time. He joined the Council as a full-time information systems manager in 2003.

  4. By all accounts, Mr Reason was an effective and highly regarded manager. He spoke of his satisfaction at running a professional operation, and his supervisor at the time showered him in praise in annual performance reviews. Mr de Chastel, the supervisor, described the applicant as “a doer” who was also a good communicator. Mr de Chastel noted in his oral evidence that Mr Reason did have some shortcomings: in particular, the applicant was said to experience sudden mood swings and was capable of lashing out in frustration. Mr de Chastel said those outbursts were not directed at the applicant’s own…

Continue reading Terence Reason and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Terence Reason and Repatriation Commission [2013] AATA 882
Case
[2013] AATA 882
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Terence Reason, has appealed the Repatriation Commission’s decision that he is ineligible for a special rate pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Mr Reason suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and is unable to work. He argues that the sole cause of his inability to work is his PTSD. The Commission has argued that other factors contributed to Mr Reason’s decision to cease work in 2011. The court was required to determine whether Mr Reason’s PTSD was the sole reason for his inability to work, and if the loss of his remuneration was attributable solely to that condition.

The court found that Mr Reason’s PTSD was the sole reason for his inability to work, and that the loss of his remuneration was attributable solely to that condition. The court found that the evidence established that Mr Reason was properly diagnosed with PTSD, and that the condition is war-caused. The court noted that the applicant’s PTSD was an obstacle to him continuing work, and that other factors did not contribute to his decision to cease work in 2011. The court set aside the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board that the applicant suffered from war-caused anxiety disorder, and substituted that finding with the correct diagnosis of PTSD.

The court decided in substitution that the applicant is entitled to a pension paid at the special rate. The date of effect for the pension is to be determined if the parties disagree on that point. The parties are free to make further submissions on the date of effect if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Terence Reason suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), and he cannot work. He has applied for a pension paid at the special rate pursuant to s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Repatriation Commission said Mr Reason is ineligible for a special rate pension because he cannot satisfy the so-called “alone test” in s 24(1)(c). While the Commission now accepts Mr Reason’s PTSD is an obstacle to him continuing work, they argued other factors contributed to his decision to cease work in 2011. Mr Reason disagrees and he has asked the Tribunal to revisit the issue.THE FACTS The factual background to the dispute is uncontroversial. Mr Reason was a soldier. He served in Vietnam in 1969-1970 where he experienced events that caused him to develop PTSD. (The Veterans’ Review Board concluded the applicant suffered from anxiety disorder, but the Commission has now accepted the correct diagnosis is PTSD.) He enjoyed a distinguished military career following his return to Australia. He retired with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in 1988, although he continued to be engaged in the Reserves until 1999. Mr Reason developed high-level expertise in information technology management while he was in the Army. He continued that work as a consultant after he left the military. One of his clients was the Noosa Shire Council. He also ran a small business selling and erecting steel sheds for a time. He joined the Council as a full-time information systems manager in 2003. By all accounts, Mr Reason was an effective and highly regarded manager. He spoke of his satisfaction at running a professional operation, and his supervisor at the time showered him in praise in annual performance reviews. Mr de Chastel, the supervisor, described the applicant as “a doer” who was also a good communicator. Mr de Chastel noted in his oral evidence that Mr Reason did have some shortcomings: in particular, the applicant was said to experience sudden mood swings and was capable of lashing out in frustration. Mr de Chastel said those outbursts were not directed at the applicant’s own staff; they tended to be directed at outside contractors, although there were some individuals elsewhere in the organisation who had also felt the applicant’s wrath. Mr de Chastel said that behaviour affected some of the external relationships, and it was apparently getting worse over time. The applicant acknowledged he was capable of sudden mood swings and angry outbursts. He said none of that was new: he had experienced trouble controlling his anger since his early days in the Army. His wife, Mrs Coral-Anne Reason, gave evidence to this effect at the hearing. She said in her evidence that her husband was getting worse while he worked at the Council. One of Mr Reason’s staff, Ms Kemp, described an incident in which Mr Reason had manhandled a cheeky contractor in 2007 or 2008: Mr Reason became enraged by the man’s behaviour and physically propelled him out the door. She said the applicant’s behaviour was a complete and scary overreaction. Ms Onekawa, who served alongside Mr Reason as an officer in an Army Cadet unit during this period, also gave evidence about the applicant’s volatile behaviour. All of the witnesses spoke of a good and competent man who was nonetheless capable of sudden rage directed at people or objects.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ultimately, I do not think the approach I take on this issue makes a difference to the outcome of the case. If the work was remunerative work, the applicant’s PTSD is the sole explanation for him not being able to continue, and the loss of the honorarium is attributable to that condition. If it was not remunerative work, then his decision to cease that work does not assist either party to this dispute.CONCLUSION The decision in relation to the application for a special rate pension (file no 2012/5089) is set aside. The Tribunal decides in substitution that the applicant is entitled to a pension paid at the special rate. The parties did not address the date of effect in their final submissions; in the event there is disagreement on that point, the parties are free to make further submissions. It was agreed between the parties that I should set aside the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board dated 16 September 2011. The Board decided the applicant suffered from war-caused anxiety disorder. The parties agreed (and I accept the evidence establishes) the applicant was properly diagnosed with PTSD and that the condition is war-caused. I make that finding in substitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.