Watt and Repatriation Commission - [2007] AATA 1536

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1536
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2005/255

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re IAN WATT

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal
Senior Member P McDermott, RFD

Dr G Maynard, Member

Date11 July 2007
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.............[Sgd]...............
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Royal Australian Navy service – application of Deledio – statement of principles – medical evidence – clinical onset – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 70, 120, 120A, 196B
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 52 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 271
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 433
Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
RepatriationCommission v Cornelius[2002] FCA 750
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
REASONS FOR DECISION

11 July 2007 Senior Member P McDermott, RFD Dr G Maynard, Member

Introduction
1.      Mr Ian Watt, who has served with the Royal Australian Navy, lodged a claim for disability pension with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
Decisions
2.      On 23 October 2003 the Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) determined that the conditions of adjustment disorder episodes with anxious or depressed mood and intervertebral disc prolapse are not service related.
3.      Mr Watt sought a review of this decision from the Veterans’ Review Board. On 9 March 2005 the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed that part of the decision of the Commission.
4.      Mr Watt now applies to this Tribunal to review the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board which affirmed the decision of the Commission.
Issues before the Tribunal
5. We have to decide whether Mr Watt suffers from the conditions of adjustment disorder episodes with anxious or depressed mood, lumbar spondylosis and intervertebral disc prolapse, and if so, whether those conditions are defence caused within the meaning of s 70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986(“the Act”). If Mr Watt is successful, we consider that the earliest date of effect is 21 October 2002.
Background
6. Mr Ian Watt served with the Royal Australian Navy from 3 July 1964 until 2 July 1984. His eligible defence service, as defined under the Act, is from 7 December 1972 until the date of his discharge on 2 July 1984.
Evidence of the Applicant
7.      Mr Watt gave evidence of his career in the Royal Australian Navy. He stated that he was promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer in 1972. He performed engineering related duties until 1982. In 1982 he was transferred to general duties. He was discharged in 1984.
8.      Mr Watt referred to an incident in 1965 when he sustained a spinal injury. He hit his head in a diving accident. He was…

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 Watt and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Watt and Repatriation Commission [2007] AATA 1536
Case: [2007] AATA 1536
Decision Date: 11 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Watt, sought a review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission, which declined to award him a pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Commission determined that Mr Watt's psychiatric condition did not meet the criteria for service-related disability, as outlined in the relevant statements of principles. The Federal Court was tasked with reviewing the Commission's decision and assessing whether it was legally sound.

The central legal issue was whether the medical evidence provided by Mr Watt was sufficient to establish that his psychiatric condition had its clinical onset during his service in the Royal Australian Navy. This issue required the court to consider the application of the Deledio case and other relevant precedents, as well as the statutory criteria set out in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The court had to determine whether the Commission's decision was reasonable and supported by appropriate evidence.

In its judgment, the court examined the evidence provided by Mr Watt and considered the application of the Deledio case and other precedents. The court found that the Commission's decision was consistent with the applicable legal standards and was supported by the evidence. The court concluded that Mr Watt had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that his psychiatric condition had its clinical onset during his service. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, upholding the Commission's determination.

No additional orders were made by the Tribunal beyond affirming the decision under review.

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.