AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia >> 2012 >> [2012] AATA 29

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Bull and Repatriation Commission [2012] AATA 29 (20 January 2012)

Last Updated: 20 January 2012

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2012] AATA 29

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No 2011/1396

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re
RAYMOND BULL

Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal
Dr M Denovan, Member

Date 20 January 2012

Place Brisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

................[Sgd]..............................
Acting District Registrar

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Disability pension – Special rate – Eligible defence service with Australian Army – Ameliorating provision not applicable as the veteran not actively and genuinely attempting to gain remunerative work – Service caused conditions alone have not prevented the veteran from gaining remunerative work – Decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 19, 24

Flentjar v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 1200; (1997) 48 ALD 1
Jebb v Repatriation Commission [1988] FCA 105; (1988) 80 ALR 329
Re Martin and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 346; (2001) 68 ALD 397
Repatriation Commission v Connell [2011] FCAFC 116
Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424; 76 ALD 47
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Repatriation Commission v Strickland [1990] FCA 366; (1990) 22 ALD 10

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 January 2012
Dr M Denovan, Member

INTRODUCTION

  1. The applicant, Mr Raymond Bull, served in the Australian Army from 21 July 1987 to 21 October 1994. He was medically discharged from the Army because he was suffering from back pain that was associated with a prolapsed disc, which had been diagnosed and treated in 1991. In 1995 the Repatriation Commission accepted lumbar spondylosis as a service related condition, and disability pension was assessed at 50% of the general rate.
  2. In 2006 Mr Bull’s rate of pension was increased to 70% of the general rate, and from 16 May 2007 it was further increased to 100% of the general rate. On 25 March 2010, when Mr Bull was 42 years of age, he applied for the special rate of pension pursuant to s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act). At the time of his application, the Repatriation Commission had accepted as service-related the conditions of lumbar spondylosis, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence and nicotine dependence.
  3. On 18 May 2010, the Repatriation Commission made a determination that Mr Bull’s rate of pension should remain at 100% of the general rate.[1] The Veterans’ Review Board affirmed that decision on 22 March 2011. On 14 April 2011 Mr Bull applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

  1. There are three types of payments above the general rate, these being special rate, intermediate rate and extreme disablement adjustment. As Mr. Bull was not 65 years old or older at any time during the assessment period, he is not eligible for extreme disablement adjustment. Intermediate rate is payable to veterans who have an inability to work full-time because of their service caused disabilities, but are capable of working part-time. The special rate is payable to a person who is totally and permanently incapacitated due to service, and as a result is unable to continue or resume employment for more than eight hours a week. The criteria which must be established before a person is eligible for special rate are set out in section 24 of the Act. These are:
  2. Section 24(2)(b) modifies the alone test in the third criteria. A person can be prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work where service caused disabilities are not the sole cause of the incapacity, but only a substantial cause. In such a case a person also must have been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, and but for the incapacity would be continuing to seek such work. Mr Kelly, for the respondent, accepts that at the date of application both ss 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) of the Act are satisfied. However, he contends that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s 24(1)(c). Mr Kelly submitted that the applicant does not satisfy s 24(1)(c) because he has not suffered a loss of salary or wages due to the effects of incapacity from his war-caused diseases “alone”. Additionally, he also submitted that while Mr Bull also suffers from further medical conditions which contribute to his inability to work, these are not accepted by the Repatriation Commission as service-related. Mr Kelly also contends that Mr Bull’s lack of qualifications and time out of the workforce contributes to his inability to work, and that the ameliorating provision in s 24(2)(b) does not apply to Mr Bull as he has not been actively seeking remunerative work.
  3. Mr Kaliminios, for the applicant, submitted that s 24(1)(c) of the Act is satisfied as Mr Bull was medically discharged in 1994, and for the purpose of assessing that section of the Act it is irrelevant what happened after that time. Mr Kaliminios further contends that Mr Bull does not suffer from any medical conditions, other than those which have been accepted as service-related, that play a material part in his inability to work.
  4. In order to reach a decision I must decide:
    1. Whether due to the serviced caused medical incapacities alone Mr Bull is prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work; and
    2. If so, whether this led to a loss or salary or earnings on his own account; and
      1. If Mr Bull was not prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work due to incapacity from service caused disabilities alone, whether Mr Bull was genuinely and actively seeking work and his service caused disabilities was the substantial cause of his incapacity.

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Bull left school at the age of 12. After leaving school, Mr Bull earned money picking fruit. He worked on a banana plantation and his uncle’s pineapple farm. He joined the Australian Army in 1987, at the age of 19.
  2. Mr Bull has a number of medical conditions affecting his lumbar spine. These are lumbar spine fusion, lumbar spine degeneration, lumbar spondylosis, and congenital transitional limbo-sacral vertebrae (being lumbarisation of S1 with pseudoarthrosis), degeneration of the congenital anomalous vertebra, sacroiliac joint dysfunction and non-organic back pain.
  3. In 1991, whilst serving, Mr Bull suffered a L5-S1[2] spinal disc prolapse. As part of his treatment he had a spinal fusion at the L4 to S1 segments of the spine.
  4. In March 1994, while carrying a full pack and webbing, Mr Bull fell whilst running. He developed severe back pain and stated at the hearing that he lost feeling from the waist down. He told me that initially his sergeant called him a “malingerer” and he was treated by the medic, who gave him two aspirin. There was no improvement in his condition and he was admitted to military hospital for assessment, where he was reviewed by orthopaedic surgeon Dr R Kennedy. In his report dated 26 April 1994 Dr Kennedy noted that Mr Bull had a history of pain since 1991, with the onset of severe pain about four weeks prior to his assessment. Dr Kennedy reviewed the x-rays and concluded that the likely outcome was that the pain would settle.
  5. Mr Bull told me that because his pain did not settle, he was placed on work restrictions that included no drills, no physical training and no tedious work. He was medically discharged in October 1994, before commencing a 12-month course of rehabilitation. Mr Bull recalled that at the time of discharge he was being treated with amitriptyline, Tramal, Voltaren and diazepam.
  6. On 20 June 1994, Mr Bull applied to the Repatriation Commission for disability pension for “lower back injury”. On 3 January 1995, the Repatriation Commission granted pension at 50% of the general rate for the condition of lumbar spondylosis, with effect from 20 March 1994.
  7. Mr Bull said that at the completion of his course of rehabilitation, he still had pain. In spite of this, in 1995 he attended the Northern Territory University and completed his high school certificate. In 1996 Mr Bull started a business course but was unable to complete it, partly due to the pain he suffered and partly because of distraction due to ongoing Family Court matters.
  8. Mr Bull told me that around this time he was very depressed and having difficulty coming to terms with life. Also around this time he met a man called Tommy, who, over an eight-month period, taught him how to repair computers. Mr Bull commenced working for Tommy on a trial basis. The trial was unsuccessful because, according to Mr Bull, his depression and pain prevented him being able to successfully work at that time.
  9. In 1997 Mr Bull moved from Darwin to Queensland. He was able to gain unpaid work experience for four months with a company called Alpha Omega Computers in Nambour. He was not able to provide the service that was required and as a result was not offered a job. Mr Bull told me that this was largely due to the fact that he was unable to attend work for the required hours, as he was on strong painkillers and therefore unable to drive a car to and from work.
  10. In 2005 Mr Bull attempted to set up his own computer repair business. The business only attracted ten customers. Mr Bull said he was unable to please the customers’ time expectations because of his pain and depression.
  11. On 13 October 2006, Mr Bull applied for an increase in disability pension on the grounds that lumbar spondylosis had worsened. On 6 March 2007 the Repatriation Commission increased Mr Bull’s pension to 70% of the general rate.
  12. In his report dated 7 November 2006, general practitioner Dr K Parrell indicated that, in addition to lumbar spondylosis, the conditions of spinal fusion and disc degeneration were contributing to the symptoms Mr Bull was suffering.
  13. On 14 December 2007, the Repatriation Commission accepted depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence and nicotine dependence as service related. The applicant’s pension was increased to 100% of the general rate, with effect from 16 May 2007.
  14. In his report dated 11 July 2011, orthopaedic surgeon Dr R Bourne stated that the applicant reported that he was managing reasonably well until he underwent a colonoscopy two years ago. Since that time he has suffered from increased back pain that radiated down both legs. Dr Bourne stated that an MRI scan revealed no disc protrusion or pressure. Dr Bourne ordered a new MRI scan, and the report of 18 July 2011 indicates that there is a disc protrusion at C3/4 causing compression of the C4 nerve roots, and a L3/4 desiccation and annular disc bulge with mild bilateral L3/4 facet joint degenerative change.

CONSIDERATION

  1. In order to be eligible for the special rate of pension, an applicant must comply with all the eligibility criteria set out in s 24 at some time during the assessment period. The assessment period starts on the date the claim was received by the Repatriation Commission (25 March 2010) and concludes with the finalisation of the claim by the Tribunal.[3]
  2. As stated above, s 24(1)(c) contains two distinct issues:
    1. The veteran must be prevented from continuing to undertake the remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking, and this must be by reason alone of incapacity from the veteran’s war caused injuries or diseases referred to in 24(1)(b); and
    2. This incapacity must also result in a loss of salary or earnings on his or her own account. When considering s24(1)(c) the Tribunal must attempt to assess what the applicant would be doing in the assessment period, if he had none of his service caused disabilities.[4]

  1. Section 24(2) of the Act has provision the effect of which is meant to be ameliorating. It covers the case of a veteran who was unemployed by reason of incapacity from war-caused injuries or disease but genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work when the person’s incapacity became such as to prevent the person continuing to seek to engage in remunerative work.
  2. It was Mr Kelly’s contention that when considering s 24(1)(c), I should follow the guideline set out in the decision of Flentjar v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 1200; (1997) 48 ALD 1 (Flentjar). Mr Kalimnios referred me to the decision of the Full Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Connell [2011] FCAFC 116 (Connell) and submitted that the questions in Flentjar did not apply to all matters, and did not apply when deciding whether Mr Bull was entitled to special rate.
  3. In Flentjar, Branson J (with whom Beaumont and Merkel JJ agreed) set out four questions arising from s 24(1)(c) in the context of a claim for special rate, which are:
    1. What was the relevant “remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking” within the meaning of s 24(1)(c) of the Act?
    2. Is the veteran, by reason of war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, prevented from continuing to undertake that work?
    3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, is the war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, the only factor or factors preventing the veteran from continuing to undertake that work?
    4. If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are, in each case, yes, is the veteran by reason of being prevented from continuing to undertake that work, suffering a loss of salary, wages or earnings on his own account that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity?
  4. In Connell the Full Court of the Federal Court considered s 23(1)(c) of the Act (which deals with the intermediate rate of pension); however principles from that case do apply to s 24(1)(c). In Connell it was noted, at [31], that the four questions set out by Branson J are preceded with the words “in my view the issues before the AAT in this case were as follows”, concluding that Flentjar does not set out a template of questions that should be considered in every case of s 23(1)(c) or 24(1)(c).
  5. In the event that the Flentjar proforma makes the criteria for special rate more difficult for a veteran to meet that would otherwise be the case, then there must be a cogent reason provided by the Repatriation Commission for applying that proforma. If there is no such reason, then the Flentjar preforma should not be applied. Mr Kelly did not advance any cogent reasons as to why Mr Bull’s case was so similar to the facts in Flentjar such that I should apply the structured questions set out by Branson J. I agree with Mr Kelly that it would not be appropriate in this case to use the template used in Flentjar.

Are ss 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) satisfied?

  1. As stated above, both parties agree that ss 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) are satisfied. Mr Bull first satisfied s 24(1)(a) when he was granted 70% of the general rate of person on 16 May 2007, with effect on 13 October 2006.
  2. Mr Bull is now totally and permanently incapacitated and incapable of working up to eight hours a week. That is the evidence of his treating psychiatrist Dr B Anderson in his report dated 22 November 2007. Also, in his report dated 7 November 2006 general practitioner Dr K Farrell opined that Mr Bull cannot work for a different reason, that being his lumbar spine condition. Dr Farrell stated that this condition causes chronic pain with episodes of spasms, very limited endurance and physical limits. For these reasons I am reasonably satisfied that Mr Bull satisfies s 24(1)(b) and has done so since 7 November 2006.

What ‘remunerative work’ was Mr Bull undertaking?

  1. The Act does not specify a time at which the previous remunerative employment is to be considered. The period is not confined to the assessment period; all a person must be able to show is that before the onset of the service caused incapacity the person was “more or less regularly utilising his earning capacity to produce some measurable reward for work”.[5]
  2. Prior to joining the Army, Mr Bull earned money by picking fruit. He also earns money working on a pineapple farm. Mr Bull served in the Australia Army as a trooper for approximately seven years. After discharge, Mr Bull attempted to educate himself with a view to becoming a computer repairer. All attempts he made were unsuccessful. Mr Bull has not lodged a tax return since his discharge because he has not worked. The reason Mr Bull gave as to why he was unable to perform work required by his employers was that the pain in his back and legs limited the amount of time he could devote to work. Also, according to Mr Bull, due to the effects of the medication he was taking to treat the back and leg pain he was unable to drive a car to and from work. Mr Bull attempted to run his own computer repair business, but he was only able to attract ten clients. Most of these clients were dissatisfied because of the long period of time Mr Bull took to perform the repairs.
  3. None of these attempts at work performed by Mr Bull after discharge from the Australian Army could be regarded as ‘remunerative work’ for the purposes of the Act. The business course led to no work because it was unfinished, the trial at the computer business was unpaid, and therefore there was no measurable monetary reward, and the other computer repair work was never effectively and successfully performed.[6]
  4. I concluded that the ‘remunerative work’ for the purposes of s 24 of the Act which applies to Mr Bull is his work serving as a trooper in the Australian Army. That is the only remunerative work Mr Bull has undertaken since 1987. Both parties agree this is the case. In civilian life, that would equate to an unskilled labourer.

Was Mr Bull, by reason of his service caused medical conditions alone, prevented from continuing to undertake the remunerative work that he was undertaking?

  1. When deciding why a person is prevented from continuing to undertake the remunerative work that they were previously undertaking, I must have regard to the assessment period[7] and not date the applicant gave up remunerative work.
  2. Mr Bull claims that he was prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work in 1994 because of pain in his back, caused by a lumbar spondylosis, a condition that has been accepted as service caused.
  3. In the clinical notes of psychiatrist Dr B Anderson[8], it is recorded that after he injured his back in 1994, Mr Bull spent three months convalescence. Dr Anderson wrote that Mr Bull was then posted to Darwin and expected to run 5km. He was unable to complete the run. Mr Bull was then sent to Sydney for three months, where he was told that he needed more surgery or, alternatively, he would be medically discharged. Because of his fitness level, he was going to be discharged anyway.
  4. Mr Bull told the Tribunal that after his discharge in 1994 it was, and always has been, his back pain and the side effects of medications to treat this pain which has prevented him applying for work, other than the computer repair work.
  5. In his report dated 21 November 2007, Dr Anderson provided the diagnoses of depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence and nicotine dependence. Dr Anderson opined that the date of onset of these conditions was gradual, over a period of 1991 to 1994 when he was discharged from the Army. Dr Anderson stated that Mr Bull has been severely affected (by these conditions) ever since then. In a decision of the Repatriation Commission dated 14 December 2007, all of these conditions were accepted as service caused.
  6. Mr Kelly identified several factors contributing to Mr Bull’s inability to continue remunerative work. Those were his marital separation and associated Family Court matters in 1996, his medical conditions of lumbar spine degeneration, spinal fusion and disc protrusion at C3/4 causing compression of the C4 nerve roots, and a L3/4 desiccation and annular disc bulge with mild bilateral L3/4 facet joint degenerative change. Mr Kelly contended that regard should also be given to time out of the workforce, age, lack of work history and qualifications and the fact that Mr Bull is in receipt of disability support pension from Centrelink.
  7. Factors commonly mitigating against successful compliance with the “alone” test in s 24(1)(c) include advanced age, lack of qualifications, length of time out of the workforce, the state of the labour market in the area the veteran resides and other non-service related factors, such other medical conditions not caused by service.[9]
  8. In the decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424; 76 ALD 47, it was said, at [37]:
The decision-maker is required to take into account any factor that plays a part or contributes to a veteran being prevented from continuing to engage in remunerative work If a period of time elapses after a veteran ceases remunerative work, and before the commencement of the assessment period, lack of recent work experience, time out of the workforce and increasing age will be relevant for consideration under s 24(1)(c) of the Act. The decision-maker is required to consider the effect, contribution to, and relative weight to be attached to any or all of those factors during the assessment period.
  1. As a consequence of his marital separation, Mr Bull had to endure many emotionally draining court appearances in 1996. Mr Bull identified these personal matters as the reason why he was unable to complete a business course that he had enrolled in. That business course was not ‘remunerative work’. There is no certainty that Mr Bull would have completed the course had he had not been so emotionally drained. Mr Bull’s personal problems were transient and they resolved a long time ago. Presumably, Mr Bull could have again enrolled in a business course subsequent to his emotional problems settling down. Consideration cannot be given to possible employment Mr Bull may have found should he have been able to complete the business course. I do not accept that the family matters are factors that prevent Mr Bull from continuing to undertake remunerative work that he was previously undertaking.
  2. As noted, Mr Bull has a number of medical conditions affecting his lumbar spine. These are lumbar spine fusion, lumbar spine degeneration, lumbar spondylosis, congenital transitional limbo-sacral vertebrae (being lumbarisation of S1 with pseudoarthrosis), degeneration of the congenital anomalous vertebra, sacroiliac joint dysfunction and non-organic back pain.
  3. The injury Mr Bull sustained in 1991 has resulted in a number of permanent conditions affecting his lumbar spine. The initial injury in 1991 was a disc prolapse located in the region of L5-S1.[10] The subsequent spinal fusion at L4-S2 was performed as treatment for the pain that was consequential from that prolapse. In the decision of the Repatriation Commission in 1995, lumbar spondylosis was accepted as service caused. In that decision, ‘lumbar spondylosis’ is described as “lower back injury causing degenerative changes”.[11] For these reasons I am satisfied that the conditions of spinal fusion L4-S2 and lumbar degeneration are both secondary to the accepted condition of lumbar spondylosis and are service caused conditions. The other conditions identified, namely congenital transitional lumbo-sacral vertebrae (being lumbarisation of S1 with pseudoarthrosis), degeneration of the congenital anomalous vertebra, sacro-iliac joint dysfunction and non-organic back pain, are not accepted as service caused conditions. In relation to these non-service caused conditions, there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal that of assistance in determining the degree of impairment, if any, that these conditions have on Mr Bull’s capacity to function.
  4. In his report dated 7 November 2006, Dr Farrell stated lumbar spondylosis had a severe effect on certain functions of Mr Bull (yet exactly which functions were not identified). As a result of his claim for increased rate of pension, orthopaedic surgeon Dr R Bourne assessed Mr Bull. In his report dated 11 July 2011, Dr Bourne noted that Mr Bull stated that he was managing pretty well until two years ago. Dr Bourne arranged for further investigation by way of an MRI, which was performed on 18 July 2011. The result was that, in addition to the known conditions that existed in his lumbar spine, additional pathology in Mr Bull’s cervical spine was identified. The report reads:

There is a prominent C3/4 disc protrusion causing marked compression of the left C4 ventral nerve roots in the foramen.

  1. There is no medical evidence before the Tribunal, which assists me in deciding what functional impact, if any, this cervical spine pathology causes. It may be that it is simply an incidental finding and the condition may not cause Mr Bull any functional impairment. Without further evidence from a medical professional, I cannot make a finding as to whether this condition contributes to Mr Bull’s inability to undertake remunerative work in the assessment period.
  2. I find that Mr Bull developed back pain in 1994. The pain in his back was a result of the aggravation of a previous injury to his back, sustained in 1991. Orthopaedic specialist Dr Kennedy opined that the pain would resolve after convalesces. That was in fact what happened, and when Mr Bull returned to full duties he was unable to complete a five kilometre run due to lack of fitness. There is no medical evidence to support Mr Bull’s claim that he was offered further surgery at this point. Had there been an identifiable problem in 1994 that was treatable by surgery I would expect that it would have been identified by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Bourne when he examine Mr Bull in 2011. The fitness level required of a soldier aged 27 of the same mustering as Mr Bull is much higher that would be required by most civilian jobs. Even if the lack of fitness was a result of a long convalescence due to back pain, it does not follow that Mr Bull was permanently unable to continue to perform remunerative work. Mr Bull had very limited education, was not qualified to work in any profession or trade and was discharged at the age of 27. I do not accept that the Mr Bull’s lack of fitness and lumbar spondylosis alone prevented him from continuing to engage in remunerative work.
  3. The fact that Mr Bull’s disability pension was originally assessed at 50% of the general rate does not necessarily mean that he was unable to continue remunerative work. However, in the circumstances of this matter, the rating is consistent with a finding that Mr Bull was not prevented from continuing to engage in remunerative work after he was discharged from the Army.
  4. In the medical report, doctors are asked to give a rating from the following scale that estimates the functional level of impairment as a result of a condition:

0. No functional effect
1. Minor effect on certain functions only
2. Moderate effect on certain functions only
3. Severe effect on certain functions only
4. Severe or disabling effect on many functions
5. Overwhelming effect on all relevant system functions.

  1. A rating of one or two equates with a condition that causes minimal or moderate effect on certain functions. Given that Dr Farrell gave an impairment rating of 3 after the time Mr Bull claimed his condition had worsened, it is likely that prior to this date the condition would have been rated less than 3.
  2. I find it very unlikely that any condition that causes a minor or even moderate effect on certain functions only would be the only reason a person would cease to undertake remunerative work. The evidence of Dr Farrell, Dr Kennedy and Dr Bourne, who stated that Mr Bull was managing quite well until 2009, indicate that Mr Bull’s lumbar spondylosis was not of such severity that Mr Bull would not be able to perform some kind of remunerative work after he discharged from the Army.
  3. Mr Bull is 44 years old. He has not worked for more than 17 years. Mr Bull’s service did not provide him knowledge or skills that would allow him to find work in a profession or trade. Unfortunately, other than his senior certificate, Mr Bull has not been able to acquire skills in any trade or profession since leaving the Army. The very length of time out of the workforce, the fact that Mr Bull has had very little work experience in his adult life and has very few skills and no qualifications other than a high school certificate are in my opinion by far the main reasons Mr Bull is prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work.
  4. Mr Bull has not been actively and genuinely attempting to gain work. The ameliorating provision in s 24(2)(b) therefore does not apply.
  5. I find that service caused conditions alone have not prevented Mr Bull from working during the assessment period. I find that were Mr Bull not suffering from service caused incapacity, it is unlikely that he would still be working.

DECISION

  1. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the 56 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr M Denovan, Member

Signed: ........[Sgd].............................................................................

Research Associate

Date/s of Hearing 27 October 2011

Date of Decision 20 January 2012

Counsel for the Applicant George Kalimnios
Solicitor for the Respondent Jeff Kelly, departmental advocate

[1] Mr. Bull sought review of the Repatriation Commission’s decision on 28 May 2010.

[2] L = lumbar section of the spinal cord, the numerals represents the segments which are numbered from the top of the body downwards. 5 = 5th segment of the lumbar spine. S = sacral segment of the spinal canal.
[3] Jebb v Repatriation Commission [1988] FCA 105; (1988) 80 ALR 329.
[4] Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327; Repatriation Commission v Strickland [1990] FCA 366; (1990) 22 ALD 10.
[5] Re Martin and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 346; (2001) 68 ALD 397 at [12].
[6] Re Martin and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 346; (2001) 68 ALD 397.
[7] Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 19(9).
[8] T-Documents, Folios 34 – 38.

[9] Veterans’ Entitlements Law (2nd edition).
[10] L5 is the fifth lumbar vertebra, as considered from top to bottom; S1 is the first sacral vertebrae.
[11] T-Documents, Folio 85.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2012/29.html