Woodward and Repatriation Commission

Case [2006] AATA 1099


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1099

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL  No Q2005/16

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

Re

GREGORY  WOODWARD

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr RG Kenny, Member

Date             20 December 2006

Place           Brisbane

Decision

 The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..................[Sgd]............................

RG Kenny

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – defence service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions –– post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse/dependence diagnosed – whether related to experiencing impact of cyclone – conditions not defence-caused – decision affirmed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6C, 14, 68, 70(5), 70(7), 120, 198B

Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FLR 327; (1987) 74 ALR 537; (1987) 12 ALD 798; (1987) 7 AAR 17

Re Tulk and Repatriation Commission (1996) 44 ALD 359

Re Cashen and Repatriation Commission (1993) 36 ALD 707

Re Repatriation Commission and Wicking (1987) 13 ALD 431; (1987) 7 AAR 289

Re Lindsay and Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 108;

Re Ralph and Repatriation Commission [1999] AATA 475

Stewart and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1174

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115; (2005) 218 ALR 733; (2005) 79 ALJR 1366; (2005) 85 ALD 257; (2005) 41 AAR 355; [2005] HCA 40;

Re Roncevich and Repatriation Commission(2006) 91 ALD 662 [2006] AATA 660

Re Pridham and Commonwealth of Australia (unreported, No 3153, 14 January 1987)

Repatriation Commission v Tuite (1993) 39 FCR 540; (1993) 29 ALD 609; (1993) 17 AAR 158

Coward v Repatriation Commission (2006) NSD 2273 of 2005

Holthouse v Repatriation Commission (1982) 1 RPD 287

Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140; (1980) 47 FLR 57

Re Repatriation Commission and Carroll (1988) 14 ALD 581

Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108; (2000) 60 ALD 401; (2000) 31 AAR 150; [2000] FCA 532

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 December 2007

Mr RG Kenny, Member

Background

  1. Gregory Woodward (the applicant) served in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) from 8 October 1966 until 28 January 1987. On 5 December 2003, he lodged a claim with the Repatriation Commission (the respondent), in accordance with section 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), for a disability pension for “post traumatic stress disorder”.  He contended that this was related to his RAN service.  On 17 February 2004, the respondent determined that his claim was answered by diagnoses of post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence or abuse but also determined that those conditions were not related to his RAN service. The Veterans’ Review Board (the Board) affirmed that decision on 3 November 2004 and Mr Woodward now seeks review of the Board’s decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Hearing

  1. At the hearing, Mr Woodward was represented by Ms D Kellie of counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr M Smith. The material tendered and taken into evidence…

Continue reading Woodward and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woodward and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 1099
Case
[2006] AATA 1099
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Woodward, brought a review of a decision by the Commission, a delegate of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which declined his claim for a disability pension. Woodward argued that his psychiatric conditions, diagnosed as post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse/dependence, were related to his experience of the impact of a cyclone during his service with the Royal Australian Navy. The Federal Court of Australia heard the matter on judicial review, with the central issue being whether the Commission’s decision was legally sound. The Court needed to determine if the applicant’s psychiatric conditions were related to his service, as defined by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

The Court examined the legislative framework and relevant case law, focusing on the application of Statements of Principles concerning psychiatric conditions. It considered the statutory criteria and the relevant medical evidence presented. The Court noted that the applicant’s conditions were not accepted as being caused by his service under the relevant provisions of the Act. The decision to deny the pension was based on the Commission's assessment that the psychiatric conditions were not related to the service. The Court found that the Commission’s decision was supported by the evidence and was legally correct.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court emphasised the need for a clear link between the psychiatric conditions and the service for a claim to succeed. It acknowledged the complexity of psychiatric diagnoses but confirmed that the applicant had not met the statutory requirements for a service-related pension. The Court dismissed the application and affirmed the Commission’s decision.

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.