Williamson and Repatriation Commission
[2005] AATA 117
•8 February 2005
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 117
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No S2003/72
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re PAUL LESLIE WILLIAMSON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member WJF Purcell Date8 February 2005
PlaceAdelaide
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(Signed)
WJF PURCELL
(Senior Member)
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – Disability Pension – anxiety disorder – alcohol dependence – applicant’s conditions war-caused within meaning of s 9 of the Act – if applicant experienced severe stressors during his operational service – reasonable hypothesis – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 120, 120A
Statement of Principles Instrument No 76 of 1998
Statement of Principles Instrument No 1 of 2000REASONS FOR DECISION
8 February 2005 Senior Member WJF Purcell 1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) of 22 March 2002, insofar as it rejected the applicant’s claim for payment of Disability Pension in respect of anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence. The Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) affirmed the decision on 12 February 2003.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (the T documents) together with exhibits tendered by the parties. Mr Swan represented the applicant, who gave oral evidence, and called Dr M Ewer, Psychiatrist, as a witness. Mr Doube represented the Commission.
3. The applicant, who is 55 years of age, was born in Darlinghurst, New South Wales. He completed his formal schooling at St Edwards College, Gosford, in 1964, and upon leaving school worked for the Commonwealth Bank at The Entrance, for approximately 10 months. He served in the Royal Australian Navy (the Navy) as a musician, a trumpeter, from 28 August 1965 until 29 November 1985, a period of more than 20 years. He reached the rank of Petty Officer. He has periods of operational service aboard HMAS Sydney (the Sydney) as follows:
8 April 1967 to 22 April 1967 15 days
28 April 1967 to 12 May 1967 15 days
19 May 1967 to 14 June 1967 27 days
20 December 1967 to 3 January 1968 15 days
17 January 1968 to 16 February 1968 29 days
27 March 1968 to 26 April 1968 31 days
21 May 1968 to 13 June 1968 24 days13 November 1968 to 28 November 1968 16 days
4. The applicant asserts that his conditions relate to his operational service, and the appropriate standard of proof therefore is that of reasonable hypothesis, in accordance with s 120 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), which, as far as is relevant for the purposes of this review, provides:
“120Standard of Proof
(1)Where a claim under Part II for a pension in respect of the incapacity from injury or disease of a veteran, or of the death of a veteran, relates to the operational service rendered by the veteran, the Commission shall determine that the injury was a war-caused injury, that the disease was a war-caused disease or that the death of the veteran was war-caused, as the case may be, unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination.
Note: This subsection is affected by section 120A.
(2) …
(3)In applying subsection (1) or (2) in respect of the incapacity of a person from injury or disease, or in respect of the death of a person, related to service rendered by the person, the Commission shall be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for determining:
(a) that the injury was a war-caused injury or a defence-caused injury;
(b)that the disease was a war-caused disease or a defence-caused disease; or
(c) that the death was war-caused or defence-caused;
as the case may be, if the Commission, after consideration of the whole of the material before it, is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person.
Note: This subsection is affected by section 120A.”
5. Section 120A of the Act provides:
“120A Reasonableness of hypothesis to be assessed by reference to Statement of Principles
(1)This section applies to any of the following claims made on or after 1 June 1994:
(a)a claim under Part II that relates to the operational service rendered by a veteran;
(b) a claim under Part IV that relates to:
(i)the peacekeeping service rendered by a member of a Peacekeeping Force; or
(ii) the hazardous service rendered by a member of the Forces.
Note 1: Subsections 120 (1), (2) and (3) are relevant to these claims.
Note 2: For peacekeeping service, member of a Peacekeeping Force, hazardous service and member of the Forces see subsection 5Q (1A).
(2) …
(3)For the purposes of subsection 120 (3), a hypothesis connecting an injury suffered by a person, a disease contracted by a person or the death of a person with the circumstances of any particular service rendered by the person is reasonable only if there is in force:
(a)a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B (2) or (11); or
(b) a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A (2);
that upholds the hypothesis.
Note: See subsection (4) about the application of this subsection.
…”
6. The hypothesis propounded by the applicant is that his conditions of anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence, relate to his operational service, in that on the whole of the material, the traumatic events which he experienced during his relevant service, connect his conditions with his relevant service. In my view, the material before the Tribunal would, if correct, point to a hypothesis that the conditions were war-caused. There are Statements of Principles in force, and in accordance with those Statements of Principles, at least one of the factors set out in clause 5 of the respective Statement of Principles, must as a minimum exist, before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the conditions with the circumstances of the applicant’s relevant service.
7. The current Statement of Principles for alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, is Instrument No 76 of 1998 (the Alcohol Dependence SoP). It was in force also, at the time of the primary Commission decision. The applicant contends that factor 5(b) of the Alcohol Dependence SoP is satisfied:
“experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse”.
“Experiencing a severe stressor” is defined in the Statement of Principles as:
“… the person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with, an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person’s or other people’s physical integrity, which event or events might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror.
In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans’ Entitlements Act applies, events that qualify as severe stressors include:
(i) threat of serious injury or death; or
(ii) engagement with the enemy; or
(iii)witnessing casualties or participation in or observation of casualty clearance, atrocities or abusive violence;”
8. In relation to the condition of generalised anxiety disorder, the current Statement of Principles, which was in force also at the time of the primary Commission decision, is Instrument No 1 of 2000 (the Anxiety Disorder SoP). The applicant maintains that he satisfies factor 5(a)(ii) of the Anxiety Disorder SoP, which reads:
“experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder;”
“Severe psychosocial stressor” is defined as:
“… an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault (including sexual assault), major illness or injury, experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems”.
9. Mr Swan submitted in his opening address that the applicant experienced four “severe stressors” or “severe psychosocial stressors”, which can be described as:
(a) The Unidentified Aircraft Incident
During one of the three trips in 1967, when the Sydney was two days from Vung Tau Harbour, the Bridge on the Sydney advised that an unidentified aircraft was approaching. The speed and distance of the plane meant that it would reach the Sydney in 20-30 minutes. The aircraft did not arrive, but the applicant, who was on look-out duty, with six other seamen and a Chief Petty Officer, and up the ship’s mast, was fearful of being wounded, shot at or injured in some way, if it was an enemy aircraft. He says that he was always concerned thereafter, when he was a member of the look-out party, that this could happen again.
(b) The Radio Broadcast Incident
A sailor, who had a short wave radio, picked up a propaganda broadcast from “Saigon Sue”. She said that the Sydney had sunk with all hands. This occurred on the eve of arriving in Vung Tau Harbour, and on the return journey, when action stations was called, the applicant was fearful of what he had heard on the radio, and was fearful of attack and sinking.
(c) The Delay in Unloading Incident
An occasion when the Sydney stayed in Vung Tau Harbour until the early hours of the morning. The applicant says that he saw allied jets firing tracer bullets and rockets on to the shore, only a few hundred metres away.
(d) The Landing Craft Incident
An occasion on 23 January 1968 when the Sydney was refuelling at Manus Island, and deployed all its landing craft for exercises. The landing craft, to which the applicant was attached with other crew members who were also musicians, was the last craft to be hoisted. The winch brakes failed, and the craft plummeted from the flight deck level to water level. The applicant’s only option was to slide quickly down the rope to stay ahead of the boom. His hands suffered severe rope burns. He was hospitalised for a short time, and his hands were completely bandaged for several weeks. This incident caused him great distress, and affected his mental state, resulting in him becoming withdrawn, anxious and fearful of a repetition of the event.
10. Dr Ewer said in the course of his evidence that there was some doubt about the “Radio Broadcast Incident” and the “Delay in Unloading Incident” satisfying the definition of a “severe stressor” or a “severe psychosocial stressor”, and he said “they probably don’t”. Mr Swan did not address these alleged stressors in his final submissions.
11. The Commission contends that at no time during his operational service did the applicant experience, as a result of that service, a “severe psychosocial stressor” as defined in the Anxiety Disorder SoP. The Commission contends that the applicant is an unreliable witness, and even if the applicant did experience such a stressor during his operational service, he did not meet the diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorder within the two years immediately after he allegedly experienced the stressor. Factor 5(a)(ii) of the Anxiety Disorder SoP is not satisfied.
12. The Commission argues that at no time during his operational service did the applicant experience a “severe stressor” as defined in the Alcohol Dependence SoP; and that even if he did, there is no evidence that, within the two years immediately after he experienced such a stressor, he satisfied the diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence. The Commission contends therefore, that the clinical onset of the applicant’s alcohol dependence was not within the two years immediately after he allegedly experienced such a stressor as required by factor 5(b) of the Alcohol Dependence SoP.
13. The applicant gave lengthy oral evidence. It must have been difficult for him to remember the detail of incidents which occurred nearly 30 years ago, but I consider that he tailored his evidence in an attempt to satisfy the relevant Statements of Principles, and that on occasions his evidence was recent invention. This does not mean that I disregard the whole of his testimony, but that I prefer other more reliable evidence in areas of dispute in the evidence.
14. Dr Ewer relied upon the applicant’s version of events being credible, when reaching his opinions; and I take that into account when deciding upon the weight to be given to his evidence and opinions.
15. On 22 October 2001 the applicant lodged a claim for payment of Disability Pension in respect of “emotional and behavioural” problems. On 19 November 2001 the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (the Department) requested a diagnosis and assessment by Dr Ewer, Psychiatrist. Dr Ewer reported on 15 February 2002 that he interviewed the applicant on 14 February 2002, and that the applicant spoke to him about the “Unidentified Aircraft Incident”, the “Radio Broadcast Incident”, the “Delay in Unloading Incident”, and a further incident, when he discovered on one of the Sydney’s return journeys that a fellow trumpeter, who was in the Army, had been killed in Vietnam. The applicant said that “this shocked him and he felt numb”. The applicant has conceded now [T9/101] that this was not a significant stressor for the purposes of the Statement of Principles; and it was not included in Mr Swan’s opening address as an alleged “severe stressor” or “severe psychosocial stressor”. The applicant however, did not mention to Dr Ewer the “Landing Craft Incident” at his interview. This being the incident he maintains now, satisfies the definition of a “severe stressor” or a “severe psychosocial stressor”, and was the most severe stressor he suffered during his operational service.
16. Dr Ewer reported that the applicant experienced shock, fear and intense anxiety during these events; and that to try to cope, he increased his nicotine consumption, and he started to abuse alcohol. This occurred soon after the stresses. Dr Ewer stated:
“…
THE RELATIONSHIP OF HIS PSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS TO HIS WAR SERVICE
I believe that Mr. Williamson’s Generalised Anxiety Disorder is clearly and directly related to his war service. Firstly, Mr. Williamson denied experiencing feelings of anxiety prior to his active service. Secondly, there is a temporal relationship between the stresses described and the development of his Generalized Anxiety Disorder in the sense that the latter came on directly after the former. Furthermore, Mr. Williamson’s Generalized Anxiety Disorder can be well understood in the context of the stresses I have described.
I also believe that Mr. Williamson’s Alcohol Dependence and Nicotine Dependence are directly related to his war service. Firstly, Mr. Williamson started to abuse these substances during his trips to Vietnam. Secondly, alcohol and cigarettes were cheap and readily available to sailors in Vietnam. Thirdly, Mr. Williamson gives a clear history of using these substances to cope with and escape the distress he was experiencing during his trips to Vietnam. He continued this pattern of abuse upon returning to Australia. Finally, psychological studies indicate that individuals suffering from a Generalized Anxiety Disorder have a high rate of substance abuse.
…” [T9/104]
17. On 22 March 2002 the Commission recorded the diagnoses of anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence, and refused the applicant’s claim on the basis that although he suffered some trauma during his Vietnam service, he had not suffered any “severe stressors” or “severe psychosocial stressors”. On 8 May 2002 the applicant applied to the VRB for review of the Commission’s decision. In the statement attached to his application, he outlined details of the “Landing Craft Incident”, and said, in part:
“…
The injuries suffered necessitated a short stay in hospital both hands being completely bandaged for several weeks as the skin had been burnt off, in some areas down to the bone. I had to be hand fed, couldn’t hold a cup or can had to have my cigarette ashed and butted, shower and toilet almost impossible.
The above incident caused me great stress which effected [sic] my mental state resulting in me becoming withdrawn, anxious and fearful of repetition of similar situations whether involved or near operational requirements.
I believe the incidents related to Dr. Ewer were highlighted by the above. Although this particular event was not mentioned to Dr Ewer his report attests to my disorders.
I therefore request serious consideration be given to reviewing Dr. Ewer’s medical report and acceptance of same in relation to Anxiety Disorder, Alcohol and Nicotine Dependence and Hypersensitive Hands all clearly and directly related to my war service.” [T11/115]
18. The VRB, in its Reasons for Decision of 12 February 2003, considered that the applicant suffered two stressors – the “Landing Craft Incident”, and the now abandoned incident of hearing of the death of a fellow musician. When asked, in the course of the Hearing, why Dr Ewer made no mention of the “Landing Craft Incident”, the applicant is noted as saying that he himself made no mention of this incident, as he had put it in the background. In his mind it was not connected to Vietnam. The VRB observed, that after these incidents, the applicant continued to serve for more than 17 years, until 1985; and that his service documents made no mention of any anxiety or stress problems. The applicant is noted as acknowledging this, but explaining that it was part of his make up, in that he kept to himself; and if he had problems relating to others, he had difficulty seeking help.
19. The VRB determined in relation to the anxiety disorder condition, that as to the dead soldier musician, the relationship was too remote and short lived, to classify the soldier as a close friend, and the factor in the Statement of Principles was not satisfied. The VRB considered, then, the other three Vietnam experiences listed by Dr Ewer. It concluded that none of these was of the level of severity required by the Anxiety Disorder SoP. In relation to the “Landing Craft Incident”, the VRB noted that Dr Ewer was unaware of the matter, and so no medical opinion connected the incident with the claimed disability. In relation to the condition of alcohol dependence, the VRB noted that the level of stressor for this disability is more severe than that required for an anxiety disorder; and given its findings for that disability, it was satisfied that none of the Vietnam experiences was sufficiently severe to fit the “template” for alcohol dependence. As for the contention in relation to the “Landing Craft Incident”, the VRB stated that given that the basis of Dr Ewer’s diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder is based on other incidents, it could not usurp the diagnostic process, and substitute another stressor. The VRB affirmed the Commission’s decision.
20. On 26 February 2003, the applicant’s solicitor lodged an application for review of the Commission’s decision; and on 5 January 2004 Dr Ewer interviewed the applicant, at the solicitor’s request. He reported on 6 January 2004 that the applicant told him that he thought that the “Unidentified Aircraft Incident” occurred on his third trip to Vietnam (19 May 1967 to 14 June 1967); that he experienced “extreme anxiety when he was aware of the unidentified aircraft travelling towards the Sydney”.
21. Dr Ewer reported that the applicant told him of another incident which occurred in early 1968 – the “Landing Craft Incident” – and that he said that he had not told Dr Ewer previously about this incident which occurred at Manus Island. He said that he was advised that the purpose of the interview was to tell Dr Ewer about stressful events which occurred in Vietnam. The applicant told Dr Ewer that he had difficulty recalling the precise timing of when the psychological symptoms emerged, but that nonetheless he thought that he was “nervous and withdrawn” after the “Unidentified Aircraft Incident” in May 1967, and that his mental state deteriorated significantly after the “Landing Craft Incident” in early 1968. He was anxious almost every day, and he was worrying excessively most days. He avoided machines where possible, became irritable and more withdrawn from people. He started to drink to excess during 1968; and was intoxicated regularly after the “Landing Craft Incident”.
22. Dr Ewer reported that the applicant told him that the “Landing Craft Incident” was the most stressful incident of all of the incidents he experienced. Dr Ewer stated that in general terms he held still, the opinions he had expressed in his earlier report, (15 February 2002); that he believed the applicant’s conditions were caused by stressful events during his eligible service, including the “Landing Craft Incident”. He said:
“…
I qualify this by observing that it is always concerning when additional information comes out subsequent to the initial interview.
In these situations I believe it is appropriate to review all of the ancillary information available. The relevant ancillary information in Mr. Williamson’s case would include:
·His Service Medical Documents.
·His Service Charge Sheets.
·The Claim Forms he has submitted to the Department of Veteran[s] Affairs.
·His Alcohol Questionnaire submitted to the Department of Veteran[s] Affairs.
I would appreciate it if you could forward the above documents to my rooms so I can peruse them and comment.
…” [Exhibit A2]
23. Dr Ewer said in evidence that he had not been provided with the material requested, but that Mr Swan had shown him some of the material immediately before he gave his evidence at the Hearing. In the course of his cross-examination, Mr Doube asked Dr Ewer some questions in relation to this topic:
“…
You asked for his service medical records, his service charge sheets. We now know that there are no charge sheets. The claim forms he submitted to the department. So the service medical documents, the claim forms he had submitted to the department, you only saw this morning?---I didn’t actually see the claim forms. They were summarised. What I was shown was the medical documents and I was told some others didn’t exist and the other – the content of the others was summarised.
As I understand it from the thrust of that, that second report, you were saying that until you had seen those you were not prepared to commit yourself. Is that effectively what you were saying?---Well, the point I made was that I really only had Mr Williamson’s account to base my opinion on. I noted that some additional information, significant information, had come to light in the interview and I really felt it would be appropriate and very helpful to review that additional information because the situation now fell into that category of what I said earlier where he didn’t contradict himself but he’s produced an additional piece of information which I thought was very significant, which didn’t come out earlier.
Yes. That is where he has changed his history about the landing craft incident. This is after it has been rejected by the Commission. He is appealing it to the Veterans’ Review Board. Is that a situation that might make you wary about the history being given?---Yes. I think whenever there’s significant change, particularly after a claim has been rejected, it is cause for concern and as I say, that’s one of the reasons I would seek out and request additional information.
In this case, it is a changed story in connection with the seeking of a benefit, is it not?---That’s true.
Is that something that might make you even more wary?---Well, there’s possible reasons and influences that may lead a person to give their history differently where there are benefits involved. So that’s why I thought it important to ask for those documents.
You mentioned significant differences. Did you consider the omission of an incident that he now believes to be the most severe stressor he ever suffered in his service to be a significant change?---Yes. I mean, when I heard about that stressor, it was a very significant event in my opinion and very traumatic on the basis of what he told me. So the fact that that came to light on the second interview but not the first, that’s a significant difference.
…” [Transcript of Proceedings pp11-12]
24. Dr Ewer said in evidence that in relation to the “Unidentified Aircraft Incident”, he understood that this occurred in close proximity to Vietnam, that the crew assumed it was an enemy aircraft. The applicant told him that he experienced intense anxiety. It was on this basis that Dr Ewer considered the incident to be a “severe stressor”, or a “severe psychosocial stressor”, with a subjective reaction to such a powerful event that it “overwhelms their capacity to cope and adjust” [Transcript of Proceedings p 14].
25. The applicant said in evidence however, that the Sydney was two nights out of Vung Tau Harbour when, at about 11.30 pm, the Chief Petty Officer said that there was an approaching aircraft which could be an enemy aircraft, and if it was not there in 20 minutes it was not coming in their direction. He said that he discussed it with his fellow look-outs. The aircraft did not appear; his watch finished soon after; he put his hammock up; he did not discuss the event with anyone subsequently; he continued with his duties the next day. This description, Dr Ewer agreed in evidence, was different from what was described to him by the applicant as the circumstances surrounding an incident which caused him “extreme anxiety”, and “intense anxiety”. This vivid description caused Dr Ewer to consider this incident the only event outlined in the first interview which satisfied the description of a “severe stressor” or a “severe psychosocial stressor”. In my view it is patently clear on the applicant’s own evidence, that the incident, did not occur in the manner he described it to Dr Ewer. He went about his normal duties within half an hour, and there is no evidence of any further incident or activity occurring in relation to this incident. To satisfy the Alcohol Dependence SoP, the event must be of such a nature that it might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror. To satisfy the Anxiety Disorder SoP it must evoke feelings of substantial distress. The applicant’s subjective reaction to the event, does not, in my view, satisfy the definition in either of the relevant Statements of Principles.
26. In relation to the “Landing Craft Incident”, it is clear on the evidence, that on 23 January 1968 the applicant suffered severe injuries to his hands. He required hospitalisation over night, and bandages for several weeks. He was on light duties for three weeks. He said in evidence that he feared for his life, as he had only a split second to decide to slide down the rope ahead of the sliding craft. The incident, he said, resulted in him becoming withdrawn, anxious, wary of machinery, and fearful of similar situations where he could suffer injury. He stayed on the Sydney for another nine months before being posted to HMAS Penguin (Penguin). He says that after this incident he drank more alcohol, and became withdrawn and anxious. He said in evidence that he did not tell Dr Ewer about this incident as he was under the impression that it did not form part of his operational service, which was the reason he was seeing Dr Ewer. He understood that he was to tell Dr Ewer only about the stressors he experienced in Vietnam; but he insisted in his evidence that the “Landing Craft Incident” was the most severe of all the stressors he suffered during his operational service.
27. As Dr Ewer said in evidence, for the incident to be a “severe stressor” or to satisfy the more stringent definition of a “severe psychosocial stressor”, it must be something that causes a feeling of substantial distress in an individual, something more than mere worry, concern, apprehension, anxiety, or foreboding. It is something that causes a reaction that is overwhelming; something that effectively changes a person’s life, and that from that time the person has an ongoing psychiatric condition as a result of the incident. That is the type of subjective reaction and perception Dr Ewer would expect.
28. The applicant’s counsel, Mr Swan, submitted that the applicant did not regard this incident which did not occur in Vietnam as a war-related incident, but as an industrial accident. On the evidence, he was able to return to his role as a trumpeter when his injuries had healed. He was promoted to Leading Seaman, after his transfer to Penguin on 11 June 1968. He was promoted to a Petty Officer Musician on 20 February 1976, and to Chief Petty Officer on 1 February 1980. There is nothing in his medical records over the following, nearly 18 year period, between the “Landing Craft Incident” on 23 January 1968, and his discharge at his own request, on 29 November 1985, that indicates that he complained of any psychiatric problems, or problems with alcohol. There is an entry in his medical records, dated 15 July 1979, when he suffered two lacerations to his left ear when he fell off a bar stool. There is no mention in the record of “alcohol”, and he was returned to duty. This record is 11½ years after the “Landing Craft Incident”.
29. I am satisfied on the whole of the evidence, and find as a fact, that the applicant did not suffer a “severe stressor” or a “severe psychosocial stressor” during his operational service. Had I been satisfied that the applicant had suffered such a stressor, I would not have been satisfied that the clinical onset of the applicant’s anxiety disorder or alcohol abuse occurred within the two year period, commencing on 23 January 1968.
30. I am satisfied on the evidence that factor 5(a)(ii) of the Anxiety Disorder Statement of Principles is not satisfied, nor is factor 5(b) of the Alcohol Dependence Statement of Principles. In my opinion, the material before the Tribunal does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the conditions with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the applicant. I am satisfied on the whole of the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is not sufficient ground for determining that the applicant’s conditions of anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence were war-caused.
31. For these reasons the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 31 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member WJF Purcell
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDates of Hearing 10/11 May 2004
Date of Decision 8 February 2005
Counsel for the Applicant Mr C Swan
Solicitor for the Applicant Swan Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent Mr G Doube
Solicitor for the Respondent DVA
0
0
0