Wiseman and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 156

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 156

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2003/559

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		RONALD LEE WISEMAN

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date18 February 2005

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – operational service – claims that two conditions are war-caused - depressive disorder - alcohol dependence - consideration of stressors – meaning of “clinical onset” – meaning of “occurrence” – meaning of “severe stressor”- Hoi Chanh prisoners brought on board HMAS Perth – sound of incoming rounds - decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 120(1), 120(3), 120A and 196

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 77 ALD 67

Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420

Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309; (2004) AAR 511

Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668

Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750

McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144

REASONS FOR DECISION

18 February 2005   Deputy President D G Jarvis

1.      Ronald Lee Wiseman enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy on 15 January 1965 and was discharged on 14 January 1974.  He served aboard HMAS Perth from April 1969 until April 1971.

2.      On 28 August 2002, Mr Wiseman lodged a claim for pension in respect of nervous disorder, alcohol abuse, hearing loss, tinnitus, skin damage and psoriasis.  The Repatriation Commission recorded a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, depressive disorder, alcohol dependence, solar keratosis and psoriasis.  The Commission accepted the claim for sensorineural hearing loss, but otherwise rejected Mr Wiseman’s claims in a decision dated 6 January 2003.

3.      Mr Wiseman subsequently sought a review of this decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”).  At the VRB hearing Mr Wiseman withdrew his claim for psoriasis.  The VRB otherwise affirmed the decision of the Commission in a decision dated 16 September 2003.  Mr Wiseman has applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision of the Commission, as affirmed by the VRB, in respect of the claims for depressive disorder and alcohol dependence.  He withdrew his claim for solar keratosis at the commencement of the hearing before me.

Issues before the Tribunal

4. The issue before me is whether Mr Wiseman’s depressive disorder and alcohol dependence are war caused pursuant to s 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the “VE Act”). This in turn raises the following further issues:

(a)whether Mr Wiseman experienced a severe stressor or a severe psychosocial stressor within the meaning of certain Statements of Principles (“SoPs”);

(b)when Mr Wiseman experienced the clinical onset of alcohol dependence and depressive disorder; and

(c)whether Mr Wiseman was suffering from a clinically significant psychiatric condition within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of depressive disorder.

5.      The parties agreed the diagnoses of the relevant conditions.…