ZHBH and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the appeal of ZHBH (the Applicant) against a decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Respondent). The Respondent's decision affirmed a prior determination that accepted the Applicant's claim for aggravation of a pre-existing alcohol use disorder from 14 October 2019, but declined her claims for bipolar type II disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Applicant had served in the Royal Australian Army from April 1982 to May 1984 and lodged claims in October 2019 for borderline personality disorder, PTSD, and alcohol and drug dependence, alleging these conditions arose from sexual harassment experienced during her service in 1983.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine the correct diagnosis of the Applicant's claimed mental health conditions, the date of onset of any such conditions, and whether these conditions were caused, contributed to, or aggravated by her military service, as defined under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth). The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence, including expert medical opinions, to ascertain if the Applicant's claimed conditions met the threshold for acceptance of liability under the Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the conflicting expert evidence. While the Applicant presented evidence from Dr Burchgart, who diagnosed bipolar, complex PTSD, and borderline personality disorder (BPD), the Tribunal gave greater weight to the opinion of Dr Reddan. Dr Reddan concluded that the Applicant suffered from a personality disorder with mixed traits (borderline and histrionic), which likely originated in childhood and predated her military service. Dr Reddan found no evidence that this personality disorder was aggravated by service and noted that the Applicant's presentation of mood disorders could be a manifestation of the inherent mood instability of a personality disorder. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's personality disorder did not constitute an injury under section 5A of the DRCA, as it was not caused or contributed to by her military service.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that liability did not exist under section 14 of the DRCA for the Applicant's claims relating to borderline personality disorder, PTSD, or any subsequently labelled mental health conditions. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.