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
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
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
- AGLC
- Woodward and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 1099
- Case
- [2006] AATA 1099
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.