Veacock and Repatriation Commission - [2005] AATA 1115

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1115
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2003/1531

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION )

Re ALAN JAMES VEACOCK

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms R Hunt, Senior Member
Rear Admiral A R Horton, Member
Date11 November 2005
PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..............................................
Ms R Hunt
Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS - Veterans' entitlements - Disability pension - Applicant served in Royal Australian Navy - Rendered "operational service" - Suffering from Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) - GAD not "war-caused" - No reasonable hypothesis connecting applicant's GAD with circumstances of his "operational service" –Decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 120(1), 120(3), 120(4), 120A(3)
Statement of Principles concerning Generalised Anxiety Disorder (Instrument No 1 of 2000)
Statement of Principles concerning Generalised Anxiety Disorder (Instrument No 2 of 2000)
CASES
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Arnott v Repatriation Commission (2001) 106 FCR 83
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67
REASONS FOR DECISION

11 November 2005 Ms R Hunt, Senior Member
Rear Admiral A R Horton, Member

introduction
1.        Mr Alan Veacock applied for a disability pension on 26 September 2002. The Commission accepted his claim for pension in respect to sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease but found that his anxiety disorder was not war-caused. He has sought review by the tribunal of this decision which rejected his claim that his anxiety disorder was war-caused. If this were a war-caused condition, his rating according to the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans’ Pensions (GARP) would need to be adjusted. However, the tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed. This means that Mr Veacock has not been successful.
issues and legislative provisions governing
2.        The main issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr Veacock suffers from a war-caused anxiety disorder.
3. Section 120 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) sets out the required standard of proof. Subsection 120(1) makes it clear that where a claim for a pension in respect of incapacity from an injury or disease relates to operational service, the tribunal shall determine that the injury or disease was war-caused, unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there are no sufficient grounds for making that determination.
4. Subsection 120(3) then goes on to explain that, in applying subsection (1) of section 120 in respect of the incapacity of a person from injury or disease, the tribunal is to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining that the injury or disease was war-caused. After consideration of the whole of the material before it, if the tribunal is of the view that the material does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury with the circumstances of the veteran’s service, then the veteran cannot succeed in…

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 Veacock and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Veacock and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1115
Case: [2005] AATA 1115
Decision Date: 11 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an applicant who served in the Royal Australian Navy and applied for a disability pension, claiming his Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) was caused by his operational service. The Repatriation Commission reviewed the application and determined the applicant's GAD was not "war-caused," hence denying the pension. The matter was appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had to determine whether the Commission's decision was correct or should be overturned.

The primary legal issue was whether there was a reasonable hypothesis connecting the applicant's GAD with his operational service. The Tribunal had to assess the evidence presented, including medical reports and the applicant's testimony, to determine if the disorder was a consequence of his service. The focus was on whether the GAD was caused by a specific incident or the general conditions of service, as defined under veterans' entitlement laws.

The Tribunal found no reasonable hypothesis linking the applicant's GAD to his service. The evidence did not establish that the disorder was caused by a specific incident during his operational service or the general conditions of his service. The Tribunal concluded that the Commission's decision was reasonable and well-supported by the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decision, denying the applicant's claim for a disability 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.

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		ALAN JAMES VEACOCK