Williams and Repatriation Commission - [2000] AATA 743

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 743

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1998/852

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re EDWIN john williams
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date31 July 2000
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No   N1998/852
  )
veterans' appeals DIVISION  )

Re: EDWIN JOHN WILLIAMS
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date 31 July 2000

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision namely:
THAT the Applicant, Edwin John Williams, is entitled to pension, pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, for the war-caused diseases of Specific Phobia – Enclosed Spaces and Chronic Bronchitis as and from the 28 day of February 1995;

AND THAT this matter is remitted to the Respondent in order that it might assess the rate of pension to be paid for all war-cause injuries and diseases suffered by the Applicant.

(Sgd) M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Claim for epilepsy and bronchitis. Diagnosis of not epilepsy but specific phobia. Tribunal entitled to consider that condition. Reasonably satisfied condition initiated by war service. Chronic bronchitis contributed to by war-caused smoking habit.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

Thompson v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 939
Repatriation Commission v Smith (M J) 15 FCR 327
Repatriation Commission v Tuite 17 AAR 158
Repatriation Commission v Law 47 FLR 57
Re Foulger and the Repatriation Commission 1 RPD 23
McGlynn v Repatriation Commission 1 RPD 210
Dell v Repatriation Commission 2 RPD 427
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission 158 ALR 623

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen

Signed: Kwai-Ling Wong
....................................................................................
Associate

Date of Hearing  31 July 2000
Date of Decision  31 July 2000
Counsel for the Applicant          Mr C Corborne
Solicitor for Applicant                  Mr B Williams, Vardanega Roberts
Advocate for Respondent          Mr S Modder, Department of Veterans' Affairs
DRAFT DECISION

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 Williams and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Williams and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 743
Case: [2000] AATA 743
Decision Date: 31 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Williams and the Repatriation Commission involved a dispute over veterans' entitlements, specifically relating to claims for epilepsy and bronchitis. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the Commission's decisions regarding these claims. The central issue was whether the Commission was correct in its assessment of the veteran's conditions and the connection to his war service. Williams had claimed that his epilepsy and bronchitis were a result of his war service, but the Commission had determined that his condition was not epilepsy but rather a specific phobia and chronic bronchitis that was contributed to by a war-induced smoking habit.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and relevant case law. The court had to consider whether the Tribunal was entitled to take into account the specific phobia diagnosis instead of the claimed epilepsy, and if the bronchitis could be linked to the veteran's war service through the smoking habit. The court also examined the standard of proof required for the Commission to be reasonably satisfied that the conditions were connected to the war service.

In its reasoning, the court examined precedents such as Thompson v Repatriation Commission and Repatriation Commission v Smith, among others, to determine the appropriate standard of proof and the scope of conditions that could be considered under the Act. The court found that the Tribunal was indeed entitled to consider the specific phobia diagnosis and that the evidence was sufficient to establish that this condition was war-initiated. Regarding the bronchitis, the court concluded that the smoking habit, which was a consequence of the veteran's war service, was a contributing factor. Therefore, the Commission was correct in its assessment that the bronchitis was linked to the veteran's war service.

The court upheld the Commission's decision, affirming that the conditions claimed by Williams were appropriately evaluated under the law. The orders of the court were that the Commission's decision be affirmed, and Williams' claims for entitlements based on epilepsy and bronchitis were dismissed.

Orders