Wilson and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 999

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 999

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No Q2005/623

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION

)

Re	JAMES WILSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr RG Kenny, Member

Date 24 November 2006

Place Brisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...................[Sgd]...........................
RG Kenny
Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – operational service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions –– depressive disorder and alcohol abuse and dependence diagnosed – effects of detonation of scare charge - no psychosocial stressor – no experiencing of a severe stressor - no clinical onset of depressive disorder within two years - no reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised – conditions not war-caused

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 120, 120A

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FLR 327; (1987) 74 ALR 537; (1987) 12 ALD 798; (1987) 7 AAR 17
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622; (2001) 34 AAR 270; [2001] FCA 1879
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82; (1998) 49 ALD 193; (1998) 27 AAR 144
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCR 633; (2004) 39 AAR 67
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission and Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331; [2002] FCAFC 398; (2002) 74 ALD 68; (2002) 36 AAR 484
Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1174; (2004) 82 ALD 423; (2004) 40 AAR 486
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420; [2003] FCAFC 160; (2003) 131 FCR 473; (2003) 200 ALR 332; (2003) 37 AAR 424
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 38 AAR 176; [2003] FCAFC 300; (2003) 134 FCR 392

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 November 2006

Mr RG Kenny, Member

Background

James Wilson (the applicant) undertook a period of service with the Royal Australian Navy (the RAN) from 4 July 1963 until 5 July 1968. On 18 June 2004, he lodged with the Repatriation Commission (the respondent), in accordance with section 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), a claim for a disability pension for “emotional problems” and alcohol abuse and dependence which he contended were related to his RAN service. On 28 October 2004, the respondent accepted that Mr Wilson suffered from depressive disorder and alcohol dependence but determined that those conditions were not related to his service. The Veterans’ Review Board (the Board) affirmed the decision on 3 August 2005 and Mr Wilson now seeks review of the Board’s decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Hearing

At the hearing, Mr Wilson was represented by Mr R Clutterbuck of counsel and the respondent was represented by Mr M Smith. The material tendered and taken into evidence included the documents prepared in accordance…

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 Wilson and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Wilson and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 999
Case: [2006] AATA 999
Decision Date: 24 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilson and Repatriation Commission involves an application for a disability pension based on service in the Royal Australian Navy. The applicant, Wilson, sought to have his psychiatric conditions recognised as war-caused under the relevant legislative framework. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining whether the psychiatric conditions of depressive disorder and alcohol abuse and dependence were caused by service.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's psychiatric conditions were war-caused under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the depressive disorder and alcohol abuse and dependence were related to any operational service, particularly in light of the detonation of a scare charge, which did not amount to a severe stressor. The AAT considered whether there was a reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship between the service and the conditions, and whether these conditions arose within the relevant period post-service.

In reaching its decision, the AAT examined the Statements of Principles relevant to the applicant's conditions and the medical evidence presented. The AAT noted that the applicant had been diagnosed with a depressive disorder and alcohol abuse and dependence, but found that there was no evidence of a severe stressor during service, such as the detonation of the scare charge. Furthermore, the AAT concluded that there was no reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship between the service and the onset of the depressive disorder within the two-year period after the service. Consequently, the AAT determined that the conditions were not war-caused.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, rejecting the applicant's claim for a disability pension on the basis that his psychiatric conditions were not war-caused.

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.