Wallace and Repatriation Commission
[2007] AATA 1697
•27 August 2007
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1697
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No S 200500248
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re IAN JOHN WALLACE Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr J G Short (Member) Date27 August 2007
PlaceAdelaide
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes new decisions that:
· Mr Wallace suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder; and
· these conditions are war-caused with effect from 30 June 2004.
The Tribunal remits the application to the Repatriation Commission for assessment of the appropriate rate of pension to be paid to Mr Wallace.
..............................................
J G SHORT
(Member)
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – generalised anxiety disorder – major depressive disorder – whether war-caused – date of clinical onset – category 1B stressor – category 2 stressor – decision set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120, 120A
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Statement of Principles Instrument No 1 of 2000
Statement of Principles Instrument No 58 of 1998Statement of Principles Instrument No 17 of 2007
REASONS FOR DECISION
27 August 2007 Mr J G Short (Member) 1. Ian Wallace served in the Australian Army (the Army) from 2 February 1966 to 1 August 1968. His eligible war service, which is also operational service, was from 16 August 1967 to 25 June 1968 in Vietnam.
2. On 30 September 2004 Mr Wallace lodged a claim for acceptance of “emotional and behavioural”, later diagnosed as dysthymic disorder, as war-caused. On 14 January 2005 the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) rejected the claim. On 9 August 2005 the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) affirmed the decision to reject Mr Wallace’s claim and on 19 September 2005 Mr Wallace lodged an appeal to this Tribunal. The appeal was heard on 19 and 20 June 2006 and then adjourned to allow further expert opinion evidence to be obtained. The hearing resumed and concluded on 18 June 2007.
3. In the light of the medical report of psychiatrist Dr Dan Short dated 19 February 2007 both the applicant and the Commission accepted diagnoses of major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety order as appropriately answering Mr Wallace’s claim for “emotional and behavioural.” It was also agreed that the appropriate Statements of Principles (SoPs) in this case are Instrument No 58 of 1998 and Instrument No 17 of 2007 relating to depressive disorder and Instrument No 1 of 2000 relating to generalised anxiety disorder. Instrument No 17 of 2007 was been issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority during the adjournment. In the light of the evidence now available and having noted the areas of agreement between the parties, I find that Mr Wallace suffers from depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder.
4. The remaining issues now before the Tribunal are:
(a) When was the clinical onset of the above-mentioned conditions?
(b) Were either or both of these conditions war-caused?
mr wallace’s contentions
5. Mr Wallace’s advocate, Mr Ower, first referred the Tribunal to Instrument No 58 of 1998 and Instrument No 17 of 2007 issued in respect of depressive disorder. Mr Ower suggested that depressive disorder had its clinical onset while Mr Wallace was in Vietnam or within one year of leaving that country. Mr Ower referred particularly to Instrument No 17 of 2007 and to the definition of a recurrent major depressive disorder. Mr Ower suggested that this condition arose out of Mr Wallace’s operational service through factors 6(b), 6(c) and/or 6(h). These factors read:
“(b) experiencing a category 1A stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder; or
(c) experiencing a category 1B stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder; or
…
(h) having a medical illness or injury which is life-threatening or which results in serious physical or cognitive disability, within the five years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder.”
Factor 6(f) is also relevant and reads:
“(f)experiencing a category 2 stressor within the one year before the clinical onset of depressive disorder;”
Paragraph 9 of Instrument No 17 of 2007 defines a category 1A stressor as:
“… one or more of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) experiencing a life-threatening event;
(b) being subject to a serious physical attack or assault including rape and sexual molestation; or
(c) being threatened with a weapon, being held captive, being kidnapped, or being tortured.”
The same Instrument defines a category 1B stressor as:
“ … one of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) being an eyewitness to a person being killed or critically injured;
(b) viewing corpses or critically injured casualties as an eyewitness;
(c) being an eyewitness to atrocities inflicted on another person or persons;
(d) killing or maiming a person; or
(e) being an eyewitness to or participating in, the clearance of critically injured casualties”
The Instrument defines a category 2 stressor as:
“… one or more of the following negative life events, the effects of which are chronic in nature and cause the person to feel on-going distress, concern or worry:
(a) being socially isolated and unable to maintain friendships or family relationships, due to physical isolation, language barriers, disability, or medical or psychiatric illness;
(b) experiencing a problem with a long-term relationship including: the break-up of a close personal relationship, the need for marital or relationship counselling, marital separation, or divorce;
(c) having concerns in the work or school environment including: on-going disharmony with fellow work or school colleagues, perceived lack of social support within the work or school environment, perceived lack of control over tasks performed and stressful work loads or experiencing bullying in the workplace or school environment;
(d) experiencing serious legal issues including: being detained or held in custody, on-going involvement with the police concerning violations of the law, or court appearances associated with personal legal problems;
(e) having severe financial hardship including: loss of employment, long periods of unemployment, foreclosure on a property, or bankruptcy;
(f) having a family member or significant other experience a major deterioration in their health; or
(g) being a full-time caregiver to a family member or significant other with a severe physical, mental or developmental disability.”
6. The Commission’s advocate, Mr Crowe, suggested that the circumstances of this case are likely to warrant a finding that Mr Wallace experienced a category 2 stressor through factors (a), (b) and/or (c) of the definition. However it was Mr Crowe’s submission, that the clinical onset of depressive disorder was not until after five years had elapsed since Mr Wallace returned from Vietnam. He suggested that the disorder is likely to have arisen in about 1975.
7. Mr Crowe conceded that if the Tribunal found that Mr Wallace had a war-caused depressive disorder then it would follow that his generalised anxiety disorder should be found to have been war-caused through factor 5(a)(iii) of Instrument No 1 of 2000 relating to generalised anxiety disorder. This factor reads:
“(iii)having a clinically significant psychiatric condition within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder;”
evidence
mr wallace
8. Mr Wallace told the Tribunal that he served in the Army from 2 February 1966 until 1 August 1968. He served with the Second Composite Ordinance Depot at Vung Tau as a clerk/administration soldier. He said that in addition to his clerical duties he often patrolled inside Vung Tau and performed stationery pick-ups as well as, on some occasions, travelling outside Vung Tau. Mr Wallace said that after approximately one month of service he attended a morning sick parade presenting with abdominal pains. He said that he was prescribed aspirin, then returned to his barracks. The pain did not subside and at 6:00am the following day he again presented at a sick parade. On this occasion he was diagnosed with suspected appendicitis and an operation was performed within an hour. Mr Wallace said that prior to the operation he was told that his appendix may burst and that there would be severe consequences if an operation was not performed that day. He was told that there was a chance of death through septicaemia. Mr Wallace said that his reaction to this statement was overwhelming.
9. Mr Wallace said that after his operation he was placed in an open hospital ward to recuperate. There were about 30 other people in the ward and he could see other people’s injuries. He recalled one soldier being brought in with a gunshot wound. The soldier was in uniform and lying face-down on a gurney. Mr Wallace referred to his reaction to seeing this wounded soldier as disconcerting. He said that he was a different person after this hospital admission. He became very aggressive towards other people.
10. Mr Wallace said that while in Vietnam he received a “Dear John” letter. He told Dr Dan Short that he had wanted to become engaged to his then girlfriend before going overseas. She had declined and asked him to wait until he returned. Mr Wallace told Dr Short that he subsequently discovered that his girlfriend had married another man and that this was “a real downer”. Mr Wallace told Dr Short that after receiving the letter he went from very happy and planning to get married to unhappy and miserable.
11. Mr Wallace also told Dr Short that while serving in Vietnam he had been very hurt by the death of his maternal grandfather who had been a father figure to him. He stated that he was unable to return home for the funeral and felt that he was unable to say goodbye to his grandfather.
12. Mr Wallace was discharged from the Army on 1 August 1968. He returned to live with his parents in Nambour in Queensland. Mr Wallace said that he had difficulty getting to sleep. His mother seemed to be very perceptive and kept asking him what had happened to him. Mr Wallace said that his behaviour was very poor at home and that his parents made it clear that they wished him to leave. After about a month he travelled to Papua New Guinea. An old friend, Mr Ian Taudevin, had offered him clerical work with the Steamship Trading Company. Mr Wallace said that although he thought he would be leaving his troubles behind in Australia he unfortunately became very aggressive and very critical of everything. He said that he just sat in his room while the other workers went out. He said he often expressed racist views. Mr Wallace said that he lived with three other workers, including Mr Taudevin, in a hut serviced by a native house-boy. Although he did not have a specific falling out with his three white room mates, he did not mix socially with them. He said that eventually Mr Taudevin took him to one side and suggested that he was not fitting in and that he should consider returning to Australia. Mr Wallace returned to Australia after three months in Papua New Guinea.
13. On his return to Australia Mr Wallace returned to live with his parents. His feelings and behaviour did not improve and after a short time he moved to New South Wales to work and to further a relationship with a young woman. Mr Wallace said that he felt lonely and unhappy in New South Wales. He felt that he could not return home as his parents did not want him at home. He found work at the Reserve Bank of New South Wales and felt that he was able to adequately complete the tasks assigned to him. However his feedback was poor and he was told that he was “not a team-player”. Mr Wallace said that his initial posting at the Bank had been on the sixth floor, but after six months and at least one poor feedback report, he was moved to the third basement and assigned to duties counting coins.
14. Mr Wallace said that he continued to feel depressed and in about 1975 moved to Adelaide with his then wife. Shortly after this, his marriage broke down. He continued to work with the Bank for a time and then with the Australian Taxation Office. Mr Wallace said that he lost his position with the Australian Taxation Office in about 2005 as a result of dishonest behaviour on his part.
15. Mr Wallace was referred to a number of medical reports prepared by psychiatrist Dr M Ewer. In his first report dated 3 December 2004, Dr Ewer recorded Mr Wallace as providing a history of feeling anger and aggression which caused difficulties in his marriage. Dr Ewer recorded Mr Wallace as saying that he and his wife moved to Adelaide in 1975 and that very soon after, he became depressed. A further record was made of Mr Wallace advising Dr Ewer that he had been depressed ever since 1976. Mr Wallace told the Tribunal that Dr Ewer had misunderstood his statements. He repeated that he had been depressed ever since Vietnam. Mr Wallace said that he understood Dr Ewer to have corrected this misunderstanding in later reports. Dr Ewer’s second report dated 22 February 2005 records Mr Wallace advising Dr Ewer that he had given Dr Ewer the wrong impression at their last meeting. On this occasion Mr Wallace told Dr Ewer that he had been significantly depressed on his return from Vietnam. Dr Ewer also recorded Mr Wallace as indicating that he started university in 1970 but did not cope with his studies due to feelings of depression and lack of enthusiasm. Mr Wallace ended his studies unsuccessfully. Dr Ewer appears to have had some doubts arising out of the apparent inconsistency in the histories provided by Mr Wallace. Dr Ewer consequently sought further corroborating evidence. After receiving and considering a written statement from Mr Wallace’s sister and Mr Wallace’s claim form, together with other background information, Dr Ewer drew a further report dated 3 June 2005. In that report he wrote:
“With the benefit of the additional evidence which generally corroborates Mr. Wallace’s history I believe it is reasonable to hypothesize his Dysthymic Disorder began either in Vietnam or soon after he returned to Australia from Vietnam. It is reasonable to hypothesize the stressors described on page 2 of my report dated 3rd December 2004 caused his Dysthymic Disorder. …”
16. Mr Wallace provided evidence about his current feelings. Mr Wallace became distressed when explaining that his psychiatric condition ebbed and flowed with good and bad days.
ms glenda postle
17. Ms Postle is Mr Wallace’s sister. Ms Postle agreed as accurate the content of the letter she had sent to Dr Ewer (T14/174). She wrote in part:
“However, on his return from Vietnam, it was soon evident to his family that he had undergone major changes in his personality. Where he had always had and made friends easily, he suddenly became very introspective and did not want to socialise. His apparent state of stress and quick temper began to cause a variety of problems and as a result he decided to go [to] New Guinea to seek employment. This lasted only a few months before he came back and went to Sydney to work with the Reserve Bank.”
18. Ms Postle told the Tribunal that on Mr Wallace’s return from Vietnam, he was not interested in socialising and was not as communicative as he had once been. She said that she tried to raise the matter with him but he was not willing to talk to her or to his mother about his feelings.
mr neil thacker
19. Mr Thacker affirmed the accuracy of his letter dated 20 May 2005 (T14/176). The letter reads in part as follows:
“After several months in Vietnam I noticed Ian’s behaviour slowly began to change. He lost his ready smile and easygoing manner. His sense of humour was almost none [sic] existent. He often became irritable for no apparent reason. His spoken words started to become very sardonic. On occasions he would make unpredictable and highly objectionable remarks that seemed completely out of context and out of character. His manner became increasingly angry, confrontational and, at times, verbally abusive. When asked privately why he did it, he responded saying he didn’t know and felt like he couldn’t control himself. …”
20. In cross-examination Mr Thacker accepted that he and Mr Wallace only shared a couple of months together in Vietnam. He said however that he noticed Mr Wallace become uncommunicative, a loner, short-tempered and verbally aggressive.
mr ian taudevin
21. Mr Taudevin affirmed the accuracy of his letter dated 8 August 2005 (T14/177). Mr Taudevin told the Tribunal that he had known Mr Wallace at school and that Mr Wallace had contacted him in about August 1968. He said that he asked Mr Wallace if he wanted to work in Papua New Guinea. He said that after Mr Wallace arrived in Papua New Guinea he soon realised that Mr Wallace was a distinctly different person. He described Mr Wallace as very aggressive. He said that Mr Wallace disliked the local population, and did not socialise. He thought Mr Wallace did not sleep well. Mr Taudevin said that after about three months Mr Wallace told him that he had had enough and would be leaving.
dr m ewer
22. Dr Ewer provided three reports, eventually concluding, after seeking corroborative evidence, that Mr Wallace satisfied the criteria for diagnosis of a dysthymic disorder and that it was reasonable to hypothesise that this disorder either began in Vietnam or soon after Mr Wallace returned to Australia from Vietnam. He also hypothesised that stressors experienced in Vietnam had caused the disorder.
dr dan short
23. Dr Short provided a report dated 19 February 2007 extending over 22 pages. Dr Short indicated that he had seen Mr Wallace on five occasions each lasting at least 50 minutes, the last for well over an hour. Dr Short referred to specific incidents reported to have been experienced by Mr Wallace while in Vietnam. He referred to Mr Wallace undertaking a number of re-supply trips to Nui Dat during which he was required to carry an automatic rifle and helmet. Each trip took several hours and Mr Wallace had to stand on the seat of the truck with the upper half of his body protruding through the hatch on top of the cabin. Mr Wallace reported that everyone was really apprehensive during these trips as they had been told of children rolling grenades under trucks. Mr Wallace told Dr Short that he had felt very scared during these trips. Dr Short also recorded Mr Wallace as referring to static patrols, sometimes on a 12 hour shift and always appreciating the danger of Viet Cong. Dr Short also referred to Mr Wallace telling him about his feelings after receiving the “Dear John” letter and his feelings concerning his inability to return home for his grandfather’s funeral.
24. Dr Short also referred to Mr Wallace’s operation for apparent appendicitis and his sincere belief that he could have died from septicaemia and being “very frightened”. Dr Short referred to Mr Wallace telling him about witnessing a number of other soldiers brought into the hospital while he was an in-patient. He records Mr Wallace as saying that he had been “shocked and frightened by seeing the extent of these people’s injuries.”
25. Dr Short made the following comment in respect of the specific incidents described by Mr Wallace:
“…
There were no specific incidents where Mr Wallace experienced or directly witnessed events which involved actual or threatened death or serious injury apart from those outlined above. However, Mr Wallace was certainly confronted with events on a regular basis during his time in South Vietnam which involved the threat of death or significant harm to himself or others. His response to these events, which included the experiences of his appendectomy, witnessing the injuries to other soldiers whilst an inpatient in hospital, guarding supply convoys going to Nui Dat, standing in static patrols at the base at Vung Tau and patrolling Vung Tau to pick up soldiers after curfew, all invoked a response of intense fear and at times helplessness in Mr Wallace. …”
26. Dr Short went on to confirm that he had read the transcripts of the first two days of hearing before this Tribunal and the letters provided by Ms Postle, Mr Neil Thacker, and Mr Ian Taudevin. It was in the light of all of the above-mentioned evidence that Dr Short provided an opinion that Mr Wallace was currently suffering from chronic “major depressive disorder of mild to moderate severity” and that he also suffered from “generalised anxiety disorder, which is chronic in nature”. Dr Short opined that Mr Wallace’s conditions probably dated back to the time of his service in Vietnam. Dr Short said:
“On the balance of probability from the evidence provided to me by Mr Wallace and the evidence as outlined in the documents provided by yourself, I am of the opinion that Mr Wallace’s conditions had their onset at some time within the years 1968-1969. In my opinion both Mr Wallace’s Major Depression and his Generalised Anxiety Disorder most probably arose out of his experiences while serving with the Australian Army in South Vietnam. …”
consideration
27. Mr Crowe told the Tribunal that while he did not dispute the diagnoses, he did contend that neither of Mr Wallace’s psychiatric conditions had their clinical onset within five years of Mr Wallace’s service. As a consequence, he suggested that neither condition was related to Mr Wallace’s operational service.
28. Mr Crowe said that the Tribunal should find on the evidence before it that it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the clinical onset of Mr Wallace’s psychiatric conditions was not within five years of his operational service in Vietnam. Mr Crowe said that such a finding could be made on evidence which included Mr Wallace’s admission that he had lost his position with the Australian Taxation Office in 2005 due to dishonesty. Mr Crowe also referred to Dr Ewer’s record, in his first report, of Mr Wallace telling him that he first began to experience depression after moving to South Australia in 1975, particularly in 1976. Mr Crowe suggested that Mr Wallace, after realising that a clinical onset in 1975 of psychiatric conditions did not assist his case, changed his evidence to that recorded by Dr Ewer in his subsequent reports. Mr Crowe suggested that a motor vehicle accident in about 1975 in which Mr Wallace’s father died and members of his family were severely injured was possibly the cause of Mr Wallace’s psychiatric conditions. Mr Crowe suggested that at least five of the criteria necessary for diagnosing depressive disorder were unlikely to have existed within five years of Mr Wallace’s service in Vietnam.
29. Mr Crowe conceded that if the Tribunal found that the clinical onset of depressive disorder was within five years of service in Vietnam then the Tribunal could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Wallace’s experience of generalised anxiety disorder was not pre-dated by his depressive disorder and consequently the Tribunal should in that case accept generalised anxiety disorder as war-caused.
30. The Tribunal considered the issue of the clinical onset of both diagnosed conditions. The Tribunal noted the expert opinion evidence of Dr Ewer which is consistent with that of Dr Short at least to the extent of concluding that psychiatric condition/conditions experienced by Mr Wallace are likely to have had their genesis in Mr Wallace’s experiences in Vietnam and to have had their clinical onset during Mr Wallace’s time in Vietnam or shortly thereafter. Dr Short is Mr Wallace’s treating psychiatrist. His report is extensive and was provided after frequent and lengthy interviews with Mr Wallace. His opinion was provided after considering the evidence given on the first two days of this hearing. Dr Short opined that the clinical onset of both depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder was during Mr Wallace’s time in Vietnam or shortly thereafter.
31. There is no definition of the term “clinical onset” in the SoPs or in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”). In Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398, Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750 and other earlier cases the clinical onset of a condition was said to occur when the symptoms of the condition have become sufficiently specific and severe for a medical practitioner to diagnose that particular condition. In Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668 the Tribunal said at paragraph 23:
“[that clinical onset occurs], either when a person becomes aware of some feature or symptom which enables a doctor to say the disease was present at that time, or when a finding is made on investigation which is indicative to a doctor of the disease being present at that time.”
32. As mentioned, Dr Short considered the evidence provided by witnesses over the first two days of the hearing and also had the benefit of extensive interviews with Mr Wallace. I have considered all of the evidence and accept Dr Short’s opinion that Mr Wallace’s psychiatric conditions are likely to have had their clinical onset in Vietnam or shortly thereafter. I accept Mr Wallace’s evidence in regard to his experiences in Vietnam and his feelings at that time and subsequently. I have also noted the evidence of Ms Postle which is consistent with a significant change in Mr Wallace’s personality on his return from Vietnam.
33. In terms of the steps suggested by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 and in the light of the evidence before me, I find that Mr Wallace has the conditions of depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The material before me points to a hypothesis connecting those conditions with Mr Wallace’s war service through suggested stressors or events alleged to have occurred while in Vietnam.
34. In relation to depressive disorder I consider that Instrument No 17 of 2007 is, in the circumstances of this case, the SoP which is most favourable to Mr Wallace. The Repatriation Medical Authority has also issued a SoP in relation to generalised anxiety disorder, being Instrument No 1 of 2000. The second step of Deledio is satisfied.
35. Step 3 of Deledio requires me to consider whether any of the suggested hypotheses fit or are consistent with the template found in the SoPs. In this regard I find that the hypothesis connecting depressive disorder with Mr Wallace’s experiences during his operational service meet at least one of the factors described in Instrument No 17 of 2007, that is factor 6(c) “experiencing a category 1B stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder”. In this case a category 1B stressor which arises on the evidence is “(b) viewing corpses or critically injured casualties as an eyewitness”. I refer to Mr Wallace’s observations of a soldier with a recent gunshot wound to his back.
36. It was also suggested that factor 6(f) arose on the evidence, that is “experiencing a category 2 stressor within the one year before the clinical onset of depressive disorder”. The category 2 stressor suggested was “(a) being socially isolated and unable to maintain friendships or family relationships, due to physical location, language barriers, disability, or medical or psychiatric illness”. In this case Mr Wallace was physically isolated from his family in Australia and in that context, unable to attend his grandfather’s funeral. Category 2 stressor (b) refers to ongoing distress, concern or worry as a result of experiencing a problem with a long-term relationship, including the break-up of a close personal relationship. Mr Wallace received news of the break-up of his relationship with the woman he hoped to marry. I have reached the view that there is material before me which is consistent with the template now prescribed in Instrument No 17 of 2007 relating to depressive disorder.
37. In relation to step 4 of Deledio. I remind myself that in a case of operational service the claim will only fail at this stage if I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the condition was not a war-caused injury. While I appreciate the submission made by Mr Crowe in relation to Mr Wallace’s admitted incident of dishonesty in 2005 relating to his then employment, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any of the required bases upon which the hypotheses rest in relation to depressive disorder, did not exist. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the clinical onset of depressive disorder was not during Mr Wallace’s operational service. It follows therefore that depressive disorder was war-caused.
38. In relation to generalised anxiety disorder I have noted that factor 5(a)(iii) of Instrument No 1 of 2000 refers to “having a clinically significant psychiatric condition within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder”. I am satisfied that the evidence before me (supporting my finding in respect of depressive disorder), raises a hypothesis which fits the template recorded at factor 5(a)(iii) of the generalised anxiety disorder SoP. It follows from my finding that depressive disorder was war-caused that in considering step 4 of Deledio, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an event or circumstance upon which the suggested hypothesis rests, is disproved beyond reasonable doubt. I find that generalised anxiety disorder was war-caused.
39. I have found both depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder to have been war-caused. I note that the application for acceptance of psychiatric conditions was lodged by Mr Wallace on 30 September 2004. The date of effect from which the now diagnosed conditions should be accepted as war-caused, is 30 June 2004. This is three months before the claim was lodged. I will remit the issue of assessment to the Commission for consideration.
I certify that the 39 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr J G Short (Member)
Signed: .............J Coulthard............................................
AssociateDates of Hearing 19/20 June 2006, 18 June 2007
Date of Decision 27 August 2007
Counsel for the Applicant Mr S Ower
Solicitor for the Applicant Tindall Gask BentleyAdvocate for the Respondent Mr A Crowe
DVA
0
3
0