Today the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal issued a decision in Green and Repatriation Commission [2012] AATA 619 (14 September 2012) affirming the original decision. The issues in the case were whether the condition affecting an Army veteran's
eye, including chorioretinal scarring and visual field defects, were
defence-caused.
Green for the most part involves section
70 of the Veterans’
Entitlements Act 1986 and specifically the "but for" test outlined in section
70(5)(c) in which an injury may be deemed to be a defence-caused injury or a disease
may be deemed to be a defence-caused disease if the member’s incapacity “was
due to an accident that would not have occurred, or to a disease that would not
have been contracted, but for his or her having rendered defence service..., or
but for changes in the member’s environment consequent upon his or her having
rendered any such service” within the terms of section
70(7).
The Tribunal, Member Simon Webb, found that Green did not present evidence to establish that section
70(5)(c) is satisfied in the case relying on two Federal Court cases of Holthouse v Repatriation Commission [1982] FCA
113; Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140 at
151.
Concerning the "arise out of, or attributable to" prong of section
70(5)(a) the Tribunal found it was not satisfied. The Tribunal rejected reliance upon Langley v Repatriation Commission [1993] FCA
299 and Johnston v Commonwealth [1982] HCA 54 holding that the binding principles set out in
those two cases did not assist in the instant case. Further that Green is distinguished from that of Re Repatriation Commission and
Wicking [1987] AATA 358, "in which Mr Wicking
was required to live on base and slipped and fell in a shower, injuring his left
shoulder and arm. In that case the mechanism of injury and the connexion with Mr
Wicking’s defence service were very clear, even though Mr Wicking was off-duty.
In this case they are not."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment