Willson and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 431

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 431

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/303

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re JAMES WILLSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr M A Griffin, Member

Date13 May 2005

PlaceSydney

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

[Sgd]      Mr M A Griffin
         Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – application to have Anxiety Disorder and Impotence attributed to the Applicant’s war service – Naval operational service – Tribunal satisfied that Applicant suffers from Anxiety Disorder and Impotence – whether Clinical Onset was within two years - hypothesis not reasonable as it fails to conform to Statement of Principles – decision under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 - sections 6C, 23, 24, 120, 120A

O’Neil v Repatriation Commission (2001) FCA 1492

White v Repatriation Commission (2004) FCA 633

Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 131 FCR 473

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

O’Brien v Repatriation Commission (1984) 1 FCR 472

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327

Repatriation Commission v Hancock (2003) 37 AAR 383

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622

Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690

Statement of Principles concerning Anxiety Disorder No 1 of 2000

Statement of Principles concerning Impotence No 16 of 2002

REASONS FOR DECISION

13 May 2005   Mr M A Griffin, Member   

1.          By application lodged on the 15th day of March 2004, Mr Willson sought review of a decision by the Respondent that rejected his claim to have the disabilities described as “Anxiety disorder and Impotence” attributed to his operational service. 

2. As Mr Willson had operational service as that term is defined in section 6C of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”) the standard of proof in this matter so far as relates to entitlement to pension is that prescribed by sections 120(1), 120(3) of the Act. Those subsections provide that any disease claimed by a veteran to be war-caused shall be accepted as being so caused unless the Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. The Tribunal will be deemed to be so satisfied if, after consideration of the whole of the material before it, the Tribunal is of the opinion, that the said material does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the disease with the circumstances of the service rendered by the said veteran. Pursuant to section 120A of the Act an hypothesis will not be a “reasonable hypothesis” unless it conforms to a so called Statement of Principles (SoP) issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority. 

3. Subsection 120(6) of the Act provides that neither party to this review bears any onus of proof.

4.          The manner in which the Tribunal must approach its task where a SoP exists is set out by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR at…

Continue reading Willson and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Willson and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 431
Case
[2005] AATA 431
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application by a former naval serviceman to have Anxiety Disorder and Impotence attributed to his war service. The applicant contended that these conditions originated during his service, warranting compensation under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Repatriation Commission, however, denied the claim, asserting that the onset of the conditions was not within two years of the cessation of his war service. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to overturn the Commission's decision.

The central legal issues were whether the applicant's conditions met the criteria outlined in the Statements of Principles concerning Anxiety Disorder and Impotence, and whether the onset of these conditions occurred within the requisite time frame as stipulated by the Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the applicant's conditions could be linked to his military service and whether the clinical onset was within two years of the end of his service. The applicant's hypothesis about the timing of the onset was critically examined against the established principles and relevant case law.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicant did indeed suffer from Anxiety Disorder and Impotence, as confirmed by the Tribunal. However, the court upheld the Commission's decision that the applicant's hypothesis regarding the onset of these conditions was not reasonable. The hypothesis failed to align with the Statement of Principles, which required a clinical onset within two years of the cessation of war service. The court referenced several precedents, including O’Neil v Repatriation Commission, White v Repatriation Commission, and Woodward v Repatriation Commission, to support its finding that the applicant's claims regarding the timing of the onset of his conditions were not substantiated.

The court concluded that the decision under review was correct and affirmed it. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the Repatriation Commission's decision remained in place. The applicant's application for compensation based on the onset of Anxiety Disorder and Impotence was not upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.