Wood and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Wood against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his claim for a disability pension. Mr Wood sought a pension for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder, alleging that these conditions had clinically worsened in connection with his defence service. The dispute centred on whether the alleged incident in Broome in May 1975, and its aftermath, constituted a defence-caused disease that had clinically worsened, and whether there was a sufficient causal connection to his service.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr Wood's claimed mental health conditions, specifically PTSD and major depressive disorder, were defence-caused diseases that had clinically worsened due to his service. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of Mr Wood's account of the Broome incident and its subsequent impact, and to consider whether the evidence established the necessary causal link between his service and the alleged worsening of his conditions, in accordance with the relevant Statements of Principles.

The Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member Mrs J C Kelly, considered the independent psychiatric assessment conducted by Dr Lockwood. Dr Lockwood's assessment relied heavily on Mr Wood's account of the Broome incident and his reported symptoms. While accepting that an incident occurred in Broome in May 1975 as Mr Wood claimed, and acknowledging that the essential elements of his account had remained consistent since 2016, the Tribunal noted changes in the details of his narrative over time. The Tribunal inferred that these changes were a result of Mr Wood's extensive research into his experiences. Crucially, Dr Lockwood conceded that if Mr Wood's account of the Broome incident was not accepted, there would be no basis for a clinical worsening of his mental health conditions. Despite Mr Wood satisfying the disability pension Statement of Principles, the Tribunal found that the necessary connection with his relevant service was not established for the reasons relating to PTSD. Consequently, the reviewable decision was affirmed.