Tran and Repatriation Commission
[2001] AATA 583
•26 June 2001
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 583
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No. N1998/1097
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re Van TRAN
Applicant
And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member
Date26 June 2001
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..............................................
M T Lewis
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Service pension - Invalidity – permanent incapacity for work – whether Applicant suffered from a psychiatric disability – whether physical injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident rendered Applicant 85 per cent permanently incapacitated
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations: reg 15(b)(i)
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 1999
Veterans' Affairs Legislation (Permanent Incapacity – Transitional) Regulations 1999: reg 6
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986: ss 57A, 37(1)(c), 37(2)(a)
Re Panke & Director-General of Social Sciences (1981) 4 ALD 179
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member
This is a review of a reconsideration decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") dated 30 July 1998 pursuant to s57A of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act"). This decision affirmed a decision of the Respondent dated 17 March 1998 that Van Hoang Tran ("the Applicant") was not "permanently incapacitated" for work as defined in s37 of the Act, and therefore he was no longer eligible for an invalidity service pension. This pension was cancelled with effect from 24 March 1998. The Applicant lodged an application for review by this Tribunal on 12 August 1998.
The Tribunal had before it documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Applicant gave oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing and the following documents were tendered as evidence on behalf of the Applicant:
Report of Dr M Dent, psychiatrist, dated 5 August 1999 (exhibit A)
Reports of Dr S K Law, psychiatrist, dated 2 December 1997 (exhibit B), 30 November 1998 (exhibit C) and 13 December 2000 (exhibit D)
Statutory Declaration sworn by Terry Loftus dated 14 December 2000 (exhibit E).
The following documents were tendered as evidence on behalf the Respondent:
Medical report of Dr R McMurdo, psychiatrist, dated 4 February 1999 (exhibit 1)
Medical reports of Dr M Burns, occupational physician, dated 5 March 1999 and 7 March 2000 (exhibit 2)
PTSD Diagnosis - questionnaire of Dr H Pope in relation to the Applicant (exhibit 3)
Clinical notes from Liverpool Hospital in relation to the Applicant (exhibit 4); and
Affidavit of service confirming service of a summons issued by the Tribunal on Dr Tan T Le (exhibit 5).
background to application
The Applicant was born in Saigon on 20 February 1955. He joined the Air Force of Vietnamese Armed Forces of South Vietnam aged 17 years and was discharged on 30 June 1975. He arrived in Australia on 18 November 1981.
The Applicant lodged an application on 31 May 1995 to have his qualifying service determined pursuant to the Act. On 1 August 1995 the Respondent determined that the Applicant was an allied veteran and had rendered qualifying service as required by the Act.
On 14 August 1995 the Applicant lodged a formal application for service pension, accompanied by a pro forma medical report from Dr Tan T Le (T13). On 18 August 1995 a delegate of the Respondent determined that the Applicant was not permanently incapacitated for service pension purposes and his application was rejected. On 7 November 1995 the Applicant requested a review of the decision to reject his application. He noted that he was in receipt of a social security sickness benefit and had provided a report from Dr Pope, psychiatrist (T18). On 7 December 1995 a delegate of the Respondent reconsidered the primary decision pursuant to s57A of the Act and determined that the Applicant was permanently incapacitated for service pension purposes (T23). He was granted service pension on the grounds of being permanently unemployable.
Subsequently the Applicant was advised on 24 November 1997 that his pension was being reviewed, and he was requested to attend the Health Services Australia for a medical examination. He was examined by Dr Bell on 5 December 1997. Dr Bell opined that the Applicant had a capacity for work despite his disabilities (T31). On 17 March 1998, a delegate of the Respondent determined that the Applicant was no longer eligible for service pension on grounds of permanent incapacity, and service pension was cancelled this with effect from 23 April 1998 (T33). The Applicant sought a review of that decision on 5 May 1998, and provided a report from his psychiatrist, Dr Law (T35). On 30 July 1998 a delegate of the Respondent undertook a review pursuant to s57A of the Act, and affirmed the previous decision. The Applicant now makes an application for review to this Tribunal of the decision of the delegate of 30 July 1998.
legislative frameworkThe only issue in this case is whether the Applicant is 85 percent permanently incapacitated. The Act provides, insofar as is relevant:
"37 Eligibility for invalidity service pension
(1) … a person is eligible for an invalidity service pension if the person:
(a) is a veteran; and
(b)has rendered qualifying service; and
(c)is permanently incapacitated for work in accordance with a determination under section 37AA.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a person is taken to be permanently incapacitated for work if:
(a)the degree of the permanent incapacity for work is 85% or more; or
(b)….
37AA Commission must determine circumstances in which persons are permanently incapacitated for work
(1)The Commission must, by written determination, specify the circumstances in which persons are permanently incapacitated for work for the purposes of paragraph 37(1)(c).
Variation or revocation
(2)The Commission may, by written determination, vary or revoke a determination under subsection (1). … "
Subsection 37(2) of the Act was repealed pursuant to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 1999. However, pursuant to regulation 6 of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation (Permanent Incapacity – Transitional) Regulations 1999 the repealed subsection 37(2) is preserved and continues to operate in the Applicant's circumstances.
Division 4 of Part III of the Act sets out the eligibility for and payability of invalidity service pension. In particular, s37 sets out the eligibility criteria, the relevant provisions in this case being s37(1) eligibility criterion, and the former s37(2) definition of permanently incapacitated for work.
Paragraphs 37(1)(a) and (b) are not in contention in this case. The matter in contention is whether the Applicant satisfies s 37(2)(a) – "permanent incapacity for work is 85%".
evidence
ApplicantThe Applicant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter. He said he left school in Vietnam in year 11 at the age of 17 years. He served in the armed forces of South Vietnam from 1972 to 1975. He said his duties involved maintaining the security of the airforce base. He said he saw much enemy action. After the fall of South Vietnam he was sent to a re-education camp for one month where he said he was treated badly, there was not enough food, he was forced to work hard, and he was abused and tortured. When asked what he meant by "tortured" he said he was "assaulted". He then worked on a farm when released from the re-education camp. He escaped to Malaysia and arrived in Australia in November 1981. After arrival in Australia the Applicant said he worked in six or seven different factories as a cleaner and general hand.
The Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 1992, and sustained injuries requiring surgery to his left leg and hip. He later fell and injured his spine. He said that after his accident he had bad dreams and nightmares. His evidence is somewhat unclear, but it appears that he also had nightmares occasionally before his accident, every three to five months. He said that in 1995 he woke at night, both because of pain in his leg and back and because of his nightmares. He continues to have difficulty sleeping. He said that he did not tell Dr Bell about his nightmares because she did not ask about them.
The Applicant claimed that he was unconscious following the motor vehicle accident. He said his friends took him to hospital "because the ambulance arrived too late and my friends worry that I would die". He recalled that he could not walk, he had back pain, a bruise on his forehead and he was bleeding.
The Applicant said that he has been in receipt of Newstart Allowance for more than two years. He said he has been seeking light duty work including part-time work. He has inquired about work by telephone, but he has never made written applications for jobs. He said he has not done any work since 1992. However, when reminded in cross-examination about a painting job he had, he said he had worked for less than half a day and was then told not to return as there was no more work. He did some painting and cleaning for which he also said he was not paid. He did not recall when this occurred. When asked by the Tribunal how he managed that job he said the "cleaning is quite all right" as it was a light duty job, but the painting was "awful". He considered that he could do light duty cleaning for half to one hour. He said he is looking for a job that would enable him to work two to three hours per day and that he had advised Centrelink of this.
When asked how he occupied himself during the day, the Applicant said –
Sometime like watching TV, listening to radio, reading newspaper, doing some shopping, doing some gardening, some cleaning around the house, sometime my friends came and picked me up and we went fishing.
However he clarified that the "cleaning" involved picking up garbage left by his children, and similarly for gardening. He denied mowing the lawn. He said he merely planted some plants in a pot.
The Applicant said that he has consulted Dr Law, psychiatrist, about seven or eight times. They communicate in Cantonese. He said he takes medication daily for his psychiatric problem but does not remember what it is. He said he continues to have pain in his back and leg, for which he takes Panadeine Forte. He said he could not bend because of his back condition. He said that if he sits for a long time he has pain in his hip, when he walks he has pain and when he is standing he has pain. He said he also has pain in his back. His attention was drawn by the Tribunal to the fact that he had been sitting in the witness box for some 1½ hours giving evidence without attempting to move. He said he felt pain during this time.
The Applicant said he attends Dr Le at least every few months. However, he could not remember whether he had told Dr Le of his nervous problems.
The Applicant said he was introduced to Dr Pope by his friends. He recalled seeing Dr Pope two or three times, with an interpreter present. He also had an interpreter when he saw Dr Keshava.
In cross-examination it was put to the Applicant that he told Dr Lovell that he was not tortured while at the re-education camp. He then said "I wasn't tortured seriously as a political – at the politician or the higher range officers".
The Applicant said in cross-examination that he considered his hips and his back problems prevented him from working, but his sleeping problems caused him to feel dizzy and unwell in the mornings.
Dr M DentDr Dent, a consultant psychiatrist, provided a report regarding advice and management of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression (exhibit A). Dr Dent noted the Applicant's history including his war background, his experience in a re-education camp and his orthopaedic problems sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident in 1992. Dr Dent also acknowledged in his report his awareness of reports provided by other medical practitioners including Dr Law, Dr Pope, Dr Keshava, Dr Burns, Dr McMurdo, Dr Bell and Dr Lovell. After considering these reports and after further interviewing the Applicant Dr Dent stated:
" … the history is showing quite clearly the onset of mental symptoms within South Vietnam during his service and during his internment, where there are physiological responses of anxiety as well as when coming to Australia they've been reactivated as a consequence of seeing a documentary where a number of NVA were killed and which replicated therefore in almost a direct sense his own experience.
The history of the mental effects since that time in Australia are clearly those of what I would agree is a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and fitting all the necessary diagnostic criteria for such …"
Dr Dent also noted that as a consequence of the Applicant's motor vehicle accident he felt sad and depressed, particularly as he has been unable to work.
Dr Dent considered that the Applicant suffered from chronic PTSD and that it related to his war service in South Vietnam and internment in the re-education camp. Dr Dent stated that the PTSD was in abeyance for a period after the Applicant came to Australia and was working, until the condition was re-exacerbated by a documentary about the Vietnam war. He considered the Applicant's psychiatric condition now to be quite significantly and chronically in place. He also noted that there was an associated chronic depressive illness of at least moderate severity. Dr Dent concluded that:
" … with [the Applicant's] overall disabilities now in place that he is unlikely to be able to find satisfactory employment and is probably incapacitated now for work on the basis of his disabilities of PTSD and depression in particular".
Dr S K Law
Dr Law, a consultant psychiatrist, provided three medical reports (exhibits B, C and D) following his examinations of the Applicant. Dr Law first consulted him on 1 December 1997 and has seen him regularly since then. Dr Law opined in his reports dated 2 December 1997 (exhibit B) and 30 November 1998 (exhibit C) that the Applicant suffers from PTSD as a result of his past adverse war and re-education experiences and that his symptoms of PTSD were probably made worse with the ongoing stresses of adjusting to life in a new country. Dr Law noted that the Applicant was unable to return to the workforce because of the persistence of his PTSD symptoms.
The Applicant was examined again by Dr Law on 5 December 2000 and he provided a further report dated 13 December 2000 (exhibit D). In this report Dr Law commented on reports provided by other medical practitioners including Dr Lovell, Dr Dent, Dr McMurdo and Dr Burns. Dr Law confirmed that the Applicant's psychiatric symptoms have been significant and prolonged. He reported that the Applicant suffers from poor concentration that significantly affects whatever job (semi-skilled, sedentary, etc) that he might otherwise be able to perform adequately.
Dr R McMurdoDr McMurdo, psychiatrist, examined the Applicant at the request of the Respondent and provided a report dated 4 February 1999 (exhibit 1). He concluded that the Applicant did not have symptoms to satisfy the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD. Dr McMurdo stated:
He certainly was exposed to some terrifying experiences and believes he could have been shot or seriously injured on many occasions. He did not describe frightening, intrusive, recurrent memories of the war and said he was able to sit and watch films of Vietnam warfare and enjoy these and also enjoyed talking about the war which again is not consistent with PTSD. He did not give symptoms of hyperarousal or any sense of foreshortening of his life or other symptoms which one finds except for nightmares. This symptom is certainly one of the many symptoms one can find in PTSD, but in its own right it does not determine a diagnosis of PTSD.
Dr McMurdo considered that the preferable diagnosis was Nightmare Disorder as defined in the DSM-IV classification of mental disorders. This condition has not been continuous since the Applicant's war service and the Applicant admitted that there was a considerable gap from his war experience before they commenced.
Dr McMurdo noted that in that the Applicant managed to work until he had the motor vehicle accident causing damage to his left hip, and that he had suffered from nightmares prior to that time. The nightmares do not seem to have been sufficient to prevent him from working. Dr McMurdo noted that when asked about his capacity to work the Applicant said the difficulty would be because of his hip and back pain, and his other health problems. He did not refer to the nightmares.
Dr M BurnsOn 4 March 1999 Dr Burns, occupational physician, examined the Applicant at the request of the Respondent and reported (exhibit 2) that the Applicant could walk about 800 metres before needing to rest. His standing tolerance was about 15 minutes and his sitting tolerance was about 30 minutes. Dr Burns noted that the Applicant was taking Panadeine Forte on an irregular basis for back pain and that he was not having any other treatment. Dr Burns concluded that the Applicant had retained significant employment potential. He opined that the Applicant's physical disabilities would limit him to light work but he would certainly be capable of doing work such as a parking attendant or in telephone sales and marketing. Dr Burns did not consider the Applicant was 85 percent permanently incapacitated for all forms of work either due to his medical or non-medical problems.
Dr Burns agreed with Dr Dent that the Applicant was likely to have difficulty in finding satisfactory employment. However Dr Burns considered that if satisfactory employment was available the Applicant would be capable of performing it. Dr Burns disagreed with Dr Dent that the Applicant was "probably incapacitated now for work on the basis of his disabilities of PTSD and depression in particular". Dr Burns believed that the Applicant's physical problems and psychological problems were equally limiting him, but nonetheless he was still of the opinion that the Applicant would be capable of performing sedentary work or light bench work of a semi-skilled nature.
Dr H PopeThe Applicant's evidence was that he completed a PTSD Diagnosis questionnaire provided by Dr Pope (exhibit 3). Although the Applicant indicated that it was given to him to complete that would seem to be unlikely given the nature of the questionnaire and the type of entries made on the form. The Tribunal assumes that the completed questionnaire was used by Dr Pope in coming to his diagnosis of PTSD (T37). Dr Pope also diagnosed lumbosacral spondylosis. No reference was made to any hip or leg disability. Dr Pope noted that the Applicant's PTSD was exacerbated by his knowledge of losing his service pension.
Terry LoftusMr Terry Loftus of the Vietnam Veteran's Association of Australia, NSW Branch Inc. ("the Association") swore a Statutory Declaration dated 15 December 2000 (exhibit E). He noted that it was the Association's practice to refer a large number of Australian and allied veterans to general medical practitioners and psychiatrists and that Dr Pope had taken an active interest in the illnesses of veterans since the late 1970s. Dr Law was also on their list of psychiatrists to whom they referred veterans.
Liverpool Hospital
The Respondent provided clinical notes from Liverpool Hospital. These notes reveal that as a passenger the Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 12 June 1992. He was asleep in the van, intoxicated. After two hours asleep at home he work up with severe pain but no headache, vomiting or nausea. Examination revealed a fracture and dislocation of the left hip pelvis that was repaired surgically. He was discharged on 20 July 1992 at which time he was "mobilising well".
Dr Le
The Applicant's evidence was that Dr Le has been his general medical practitioner since about 1984 or 1986. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties to obtain clinical records and a report from Dr Le (and to obtain the Liverpool Hospital clinical notes). The Respondent advised subsequently that Dr Le did not provide any records in response to a request pursuant to s128 of the Act, and when the Tribunal then issued a summons for Dr Le to provide his records he failed to return any documents. The Tribunal notes from the Affidavit of Service (exhibit 5) that the summons was served on Dr Le's secretary, and not on Dr Le personally, as required pursuant to reg. 15(b)(i) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulations . Therefore no action can be taken about his failure to comply. The Applicant's representative was aware that Dr Le had not co-operated in providing documents, and considered that there was no action that could be taken on the Applicant's behalf to assist.
submissions
Whether the Applicant suffers a psychiatric disabilityIt was submitted for the Applicant that based on the evidence and in particular that of Dr Law, the treating psychiatrist, there is a clear clinical picture of PTSD. The Applicant relied on the fact that he had seen Dr Law 19 times and that he had ample opportunity to determine whether the Applicant suffered from any organic brain damage arising from the motor vehicle accident. Dr Law's view was that the Applicant's problem was psychological in nature.
The Applicant relied on the decision in Re Panke & Director-General of Social Sciences (1981) 4 ALD 179 where the Tribunal held (in the headnote) that:
… the degree of incapacity of a person can be ascertained by taking into account the impact that a person's physical or mental impairment is likely to have upon his capacity to undertake suitable paid work. The assessment of what work is suitable to be undertaken by a person would appear to require consideration of matters such as nature and extent of his disabilities, his capacity to sustain his work effort throughout a normal working day or week, his age, his previous work experience and the types of paid work available in the community which a person with those characteristics may reasonably be expected to perform.
It was submitted for the Applicant that in taking into account the combination of his psychological and his physical disabilities, he satisfies the 85 percent permanent incapacity for work requirement of s37 of the Act.
The Respondent noted that there was quite a range of diagnoses offered at various stages to explain the Applicant's condition including an early opinion by Dr Keshava that the Applicant did not suffer from nightmares or bad dreams. The Respondent noted that the report of Dr Keshava was inconsistent with the report of Dr Law (exhibit B) who first diagnosed the Applicant having PTSD. The Respondent also noted the report of Dr Lovell dated 15 July 1998 cast doubt on the PTSD diagnosis because of a lack of objective evidence of hyperarousal, avoidance or irritability. Dr Lovell noted that the account of the nightmares appeared to be too general and was not consistent with PTSD.
It was submitted for the Respondent that from Dr Lovell's point of view the Applicant was anxious about his work prospects because of his back injury rather than suffering any ill effects of the Vietnam war. The Respondent also noted that the most recent opinion as to the appropriate diagnosis of the Applicant's condition is that of a nightmare disorder (Dr McMurdo, exhibit 1). Dr McMurdo's findings were taken up by Dr Burns in his report (exhibit 2).
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's case at its highest, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, is that he suffers from some sort of psychiatric illness. Importantly, Dr Burns notes that notwithstanding that illness, the Applicant retains the ability to work. It was submitted that, however the condition is diagnosed, it became manifest quite some time ago.
It was submitted for the Respondent that the Applicant gave inconsistent histories to the relevant medical practitioners. It was submitted that if one relied on the history recorded by Dr Dent that the nightmares commenced about 1994 or 1995, then it is remarkable that the nightmares were not reported to Dr Keshava or to Dr Bell whose reports reflect specific denials by the Applicant that he experienced nightmares or flashbacks. The Respondent invited the Tribunal to view with some doubt the Applicant's claim that he has these psychiatric symptoms.
Whether the physical injuries sustained after the motor vehicle accident makes the Applicant 85% unemployableThe Applicant's case is that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident and the injury suffered has had a long-lasting effect. He sustained a hip fracture that required surgery and hospitalisation. It was submitted that the disability arising from this injury alone made him 85 percent permanently incapacitated.
It was submitted for the Respondent that the only detailed evidence regarding the ongoing effects of the Applicant's physical injuries that he claims affected his back and hip was the report of Dr Burns (exhibit 2). The Respondent noted Dr Burns' comment that the only medication the Applicant used for his pain was Panadeine Forte on an irregular basis. It was submitted for the Respondent that therefore it did not appear the Applicant's hip and back problems were causing him to require ongoing treatment, perhaps at the hands of an orthopaedist or a rheumatologist.
It was submitted for the Respondent that during the hearing the Tribunal noted its observation that the Applicant did not appear to be uncomfortable even though he was sitting to give his evidence for a long period. The Tribunal noted that this was the case on both days of the hearing. The Applicant relied on his general practitioner, Dr Le, and submitted that he had difficulty sitting for long periods. However Dr Le did not present himself to the Tribunal after numerous requests. The Respondent relied on the Tribunal's observation to challenge the Applicant's evidence that he has difficulty sitting for long periods.
Although clearly there is some pathology in relation to the Applicant's back and hip, they do not appear to have manifested themselves in any serious need for treatment or any serious impairment. It was submitted for the Respondent that the Tribunal could infer that the Applicant's hip and back condition are not very severe.
Lack of English Language SkillsIt was submitted for the Applicant that he has a lack of English skills and on the evidence of Dr Burns the Applicant's work capacity is limited to sedentary work. It was submitted for the Respondent that there is little basis in that suggestion, and reference was made to the consultations with Dr Burns (exhibit 2) and Dr Bell (T31). Dr McMurdo (exhibit 1) noted that the Applicant had poor diction, but it was submitted on the basis of Dr Burns' opinion his lack of English skills would not be a significant barrier to semi-skilled bench work or light unskilled work.
It was submitted for the Respondent that the evidence before the Tribunal on the physical, psychiatric and English language skills issues would not satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant meets the legal test of 85 percent permanent incapacity.
consideration of evidence and findings of factThe Tribunal noted during the hearing and before the Liverpool Hospital clinical notes were made available, that on a number of occasions during cross-examination the Applicant said he could not remember. The Tribunal was concerned whether this related to his psychiatric condition or a possible head injury at the time of the motor vehicle accident, or because he was trying to be evasive. Now that the Liverpool Hospital notes are available and show no evidence of head injury the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the Applicant was evasive rather than suffering from memory loss. Although Dr Law refers to the Applicant being "forgetful" this is not sufficient evidence to indicate that he has any significant memory impairment that would interfere with his employment. The Tribunal doubts the Applicant's credibility and considers that he has exaggerated his psychiatric condition and his re-education camp "torture" to Dr Law and Dr Pope to assist his claim for pension. He has also given contradictory histories to various doctors. The Applicant's psychiatric condition also appears to have been exacerbated by the cancellation of his service pension.
The weight of the evidence is against the Applicant having any significant physical or psychiatric disability. The clinical notes of Dr Le would have been very useful in identifying the extent to which the Applicant sought any attention from him from either of these conditions. All reasonable efforts have been made to obtain those records, and the Tribunal notes that the Applicant's representative made no effort to attempt to have Dr Le co-operate.
There is no doubt that the Applicant suffers from a residual disability in his hip and back arising from the motor vehicle accident, and in addition he has a psychiatric disability. Those conditions are probably permanent. However, on the medical evidence available to the Tribunal, it is not reasonably satisfied that the Applicant's incapacity from his hip and back condition and his psychiatric condition preclude him from working. The Tribunal notes Dr Burns' opinion in this area, and his expertise in assessing work capacity. Dr Burns considers the Applicant has "considerable retained work capacity".
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is not permanently incapacitated for work to the level of 85 percent, and that he would be able to do sedentary unskilled work of at least 30 hours per week. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant's limited language skills would not be an impediment to such employment, and indeed he has demonstrated that by having undertaken factory work for a number or years after he arrived in Australia before he sustained his injury. That injury restricts him to light work, but he could certainly return to light factory work.
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 52 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 22 March 2000 & 20 December 2000
Date of Decision 26 June 2001
Representative of the Applicant Mr T McCombe, Vietnam Veteran's Association
Counsel for the Respondent Mr I Butcher & Miss R M Henderson
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms C Spiers, Dept. of Veterans' Affairs
0
0