Thomas and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 947

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 947

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2003/528

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

)
Re RYLAND THOMAS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member P McDermott
Dr KP Kennedy, Member  

Date29 September 2005

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.  

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

P McDermott
  Senior Member  

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – operational service – claim that alcohol dependence and post traumatic stress disorder were war-caused – consideration of Statement of Principles – – decision under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 120(1), 120(3), 120A and 196

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 188 ALR 756
Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1174
Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67, [2004] FCA 633
Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 707
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius[2002] FCA 750
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 77 ALD 67
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309
Guy v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 562
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 30 AAR 67

REASONS FOR DECISION

29 September 2005  Senior Member P McDermott
  Dr KP Kennedy, Member

1.      In 1966 Mr Ryland Thomas was engaged in operational service with the Royal Australian Air Force in Ubon, Thailand for a period of four and a half months (24 March 1966 to 6 September 1966).  He is in receipt of a disability pension assessed at 100 per cent of the general rate for the conditions of cardiomyopathy; vertebrovascular ischaemia; chronic solar skin; damage (face); haemorrhoids; bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and gastro-oesophageal disease.

2.      Mr Thomas has lodged a claim for pension in respect of alcohol dependence and post traumatic stress disorder.

3.      On 22 November 2001 the Repatriation Commission (“Commission”) rejected a claim for pension for alcohol dependence and continued a disability pension assessed at 100 per cent of the general rate.

4.      On 6 January 2003 the Commission rejected a claim for pension and treatment for post traumatic stress disorder.

5.      Mr Thomas sought a review of these decisions from the Veterans’ Review Board. On 4 April 2003 the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed these decisions.  Mr Thomas has applied to this Tribunal to review the decisions of the Commission, as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board.

Issues before the Tribunal

6.      We have to decide whether the conditions of alcohol dependence and post traumatic stress disorder are war-caused for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the “Act”). We also have to consider whether…

Continue reading Thomas and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thomas and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 947
Case
[2005] AATA 947
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas sought a review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission regarding his claim for war-related alcohol dependence and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented by Thomas was sufficient to establish that his alcohol dependence and PTSD were caused by his operational service during the war. This required a determination of whether these conditions fell within the scope of the relevant Statement of Principles.

The court considered the legislative framework provided by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, particularly sections 9, 120(1), 120(3), 120A, and 196. The Tribunal examined previous case law, including Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Bull v Repatriation Commission, and Hardman v Repatriation Commission, to understand how the principles of causation and operational service were interpreted. The court also reviewed the Statement of Principles concerning alcohol dependence and PTSD in the context of military service. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Thomas's evidence did not sufficiently establish a causal link between his service and the claimed conditions, aligning with the reasoning in previous cases such as White v Repatriation Commission and Lees v Repatriation Commission.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the Repatriation Commission's decision, concluding that Thomas had not met the required standard of proof. The Tribunal determined that the evidence presented was not adequate to establish that his alcohol dependence and PTSD were war-caused, and therefore, the claim was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the statutory requirements and the established case law precedents.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions 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.