Browning and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Browning against a decision of the Repatriation Commission, which had denied her claim for a war widow's pension. The claim arose from the death of her husband, Mr Browning, who had served in the Royal Australian Air Force and rendered operational service. The central dispute was whether Mr Browning's death from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was "war caused" within the meaning of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (VE Act).

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the material before it raised a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Browning's death to his operational service. This required the Tribunal to assess the evidence in accordance with Statement of Principles (SoP) No. 75 of 2012, as amended, concerning acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether factor 6(b) of the SoP, relating to exposure to benzene, was satisfied by the evidence.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in *Deledio*, requiring a four-step assessment of whether the claim material gave rise to a reasonable hypothesis, whether an applicable SoP existed, whether the hypothesis contained the SoP's stipulated factors, and if so, whether the facts supporting those factors were disproved beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal was satisfied that acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was the primary cause of Mr Browning's death. However, it found that the evidence did not demonstrate exposure to benzene at the levels required by SoP 75 of 2012, specifically the requirement of being exposed to benzene on at least 600 days within a continuous period of five years before the clinical onset of the leukaemia, with the first exposure occurring at least five years prior.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the material before it did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Browning's death to his operational service, as the necessary factors under the applicable Statement of Principles were not met. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.