Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 19
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1005
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re TERRENCE JOHN YOUNGNICKEL Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member Date14 January 2004
Place Sydney
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 1 February 2001 as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 6 May 2002, which refused the claim of Mr Terrence John Youngnickel that post traumatic stress disorder was war-caused.
The Tribunal finds that Mr Youngnickel suffered alcohol abuse/ dependence, which was however not war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act1986.
[Sgd] Ms G Ettinger
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Veteran – claim regarding “severe stressor” – initially claim for PTSD – abandoned at hearing – claim for alcohol abuse/dependence – application of SOP – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 120, 120A 120(1) 120(3)
RMA Statement of Principles concerning Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse - Instrument No. 76 of 1998
CASE LAW
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 52 ALD 1
Budworth v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 317
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 60 ALD 401
Gorton v Repatriation Commission (2001) 63 ALD 723
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 74 ALD 366
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Robertson v Repatriation Commission (AAT 12666, 2 March 1998)
REASONS FOR DECISION
14 January 2004 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
1. The application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was that of Mr Terrence John Youngnickel (“the Applicant”), for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (T2), dated 1 February 2001 as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”), (T17), on 6 May 2002, refusing the Applicant’s claim that his post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) was war-caused. The decision of the Repatriation Commission increased the level of Mr Youngnickel’s disability pension, but argument regarding that aspect of his affairs was not further discussed at the Tribunal. If Mr Youngnickel’s claim was successful, his application would be remitted to the Repatriation Commission for assessment of pension.
2. The Tribunal convened a Hearing in this matter on 28 July 2003 in Sydney, with closing submissions taking place on 9 September 2003. At the initial Hearing the Applicant was represented by Mr M Vincent of counsel, instructed by Vardanega Roberts Solicitors, and the Respondent, by Mr M Ryan and Mr J Marsh of the Advocacy Section of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. When closing submissions were made on 9 September 2003, Mr Vincent represented the Applicant, and Ms R Henderson of counsel presented closing submissions for the Respondent. At the time of closing submissions, Mr Vincent’s ultimate application on behalf of the Applicant was for alcohol abuse/dependence only, having decided not to…
Continue reading Youngnickel and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Youngnickel and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 19
- Case
- [2004] AATA 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the Tribunal had to address were whether the Repatriation Commission's decision to refuse Mr Youngnickel's claim for war-caused PTSD was correct, and whether his alcohol abuse/dependence was war-caused. The Tribunal had to consider the application of the SOP and the evidence provided to determine if the Commission's decision was legally sound.
In affirming the Repatriation Commission's decision, the Tribunal held that Mr Youngnickel's claim for war-caused PTSD was correctly refused as he had not established that his condition was attributable to a severe stressor during his service. The Tribunal noted that although Mr Youngnickel had initially claimed PTSD, he abandoned this claim at the hearing, instead asserting alcohol abuse/dependence. However, the Tribunal found that his alcohol abuse/dependence was not war-caused, as required under section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Tribunal concluded that the Repatriation Commission had properly applied the relevant legislation and evidence in making its decision.
The Tribunal's final order affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 1 February 2001, as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 6 May 2002, which refused Mr Youngnickel's claim for war-caused PTSD. Additionally, the Tribunal found that Mr Youngnickel suffered alcohol abuse/dependence, but this condition was not war-caused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 1 February 2001 as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 6 May 2002, which refused the claim of Mr Terrence John Youngnickel that post traumatic stress disorder was war-caused.
The Tribunal finds that Mr Youngnickel suffered alcohol abuse/ dependence, which was however not war-caused pursuant to section 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
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.