Worden and Repatriation Commission

[2004] AATA 520

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 520

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2001/197

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		GRAHAM RORY WORDEN

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis and Dr E T Eriksen, Member

Date24 May 2004

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)

Deputy President

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL    )
  )           No. S2001/197
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION                  )

Re:     GRAHAM RORY WORDEN        

Applicant

And:   REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

CORRIGENDUM TO DECISION [2004] AATA 520

TribunalDeputy President Jarvis

Date of Decision                24 May 2004

Date of Corrigendum       10 June 2004

PlaceAdelaide

Corrigendum:  

That the phrase ’Alcohol SoP’ appearing in paragraph 61 of the reasons for decision be deleted and ’Anxiety SoP’ be inserted in its place.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS - operational service - whether veteran suffers from anxiety disorder - whether veteran suffers from alcohol dependence - consideration of stressors – objective assessment of state of affairs constituting stressor - scare charges in Vung Tau Harbor and other defensive measures aboard HMAS Sydney – meaning of “clinical onset” and “clinical worsening” – decision of VRB affirmed.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 9, 13(1), 120(1), 120(3) and 120A

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

O’Neill v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 290

Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420

Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCA 300

Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 197 ALR 283

Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309

Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668

Re A’Bell and Repatriation Commission (1999) 58 ALD 721

Gerzina v Repatriation Commission [2003] FMCA 490

Gerzina v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCAFC 96

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 270

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 May 2004 Deputy President D G Jarvis and Dr E Eriksen, Member   

Reasons for Decision 

1.      The applicant, Graham Rory Worden, is a Vietnam veteran.  In a decision made on 24 February 2000, a delegate of the respondent refused the applicant’s claim for medical treatment and for a pension for incapacity for conditions diagnosed as anxiety disorder, spondylolisthesis, alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse on the ground that the conditions were not war-caused.  The applicant has an accepted disability of sensorineural hearing loss of the right ear.  On 9 April 2001, the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed the delegate’s decision.  The applicant has applied for review of this decision.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr S D Ower of counsel and the respondent was represented by its advocate, Mr G Doube. The applicant and a psychiatrist, Dr M Ewer, gave evidence in support of the applicant’s case, and Commodore Mulcare gave evidence for the respondent. The documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were admitted in evidence, and the parties tendered a number of other documents.  Following the conclusion of the hearing, we asked the parties to address certain issues in relation to the claim for…