Cartwright and Repatriation Commission
[2005] AATA 1136
•17 November 2005
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1136
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2004/959
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re PHYLLIS CARTWRIGHT Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly and Dr Pat Lynch, Member Date17 November 2005
PlaceSydney
Decision
The reviewable decision made on of 4 February 2003 is affirmed.
[sgd] Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ APPEALS - operational service - kind of death was Ischaemic heart disease resulting from hypertension - an hypothesis identified that drinking habit connected with war service and contributed to death – Ischaemic heart disease and hypertension Statement of Principles satisfied – facts disproved beyond a reasonable doubt – death not war caused - the veteran’s widow not entitled to pension - decision affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 ss 6A(1), 7(1)(c), 8, 120(1), 120(3), 120A, 120A(3) and 175(1)
CASELAW
Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140
Repatriation Commission v Tuite (1993) 29 ALD 609
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711 (16 July 2003)
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission(1998) 50 ALD 668
REASONS FOR DECISION
17 November 2005 Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly and Dr Pat Lynch Background
1. Mrs Phyllis Cartwright married Mr Lloyd Cartwright, a World War Two veteran, on 31 January 1959. She has applied to the Tribunal pursuant to s 175(1) of the Veterans’Entitlements Act 1986 (the “Act”) for a review of the decision made by the Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) on 4 February 2003 to refuse her claim for pension in respect of her husband’s death. That decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 7 June 2004.
2. Mr Cartwright served in the Australian Army (“the Army”) from 9 May 1940 to 24 July 1940 and from 4 February 1941 to 7 March 1941. Those periods of service are eligible service pursuant to s 7(1)(c) of the Act. He also served from 10 December 1941 to 28 July 1947, this period is operational service pursuant to s 6A(1) of the Act. The parties agreed that his period of operational service is the relevant service in these proceedings.
3. Mr Cartwright died on 5 November 1998. Professor O’Rourke and Associate Professor Richards who appeared for the Respondent and Applicant respectively agreed that the cause of death was Ischaemic Heart Disease (“IHD”) resulting from hypertension.
The Law
4. A war-caused death is defined in s 8 of the Act which provides relevantly:
(1) Subject to this section and section 9A, for the purposes of this Act, the death of a veteran shall be taken to have been war-caused if: …
(b) the death of the veteran arose out of, or was attributable to, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran;
5. In Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140 at 150, the Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously held:
The Act does not say death which is "caused by" or "results from" his war service - phrases which might connote a proximate causal relationship. The expression "arisen out of" is satisfied if some less proximate causal relationship is established. Of course, a suggested relationship which is fanciful is not sufficient; and a suggested relationship may be so tenuous as to preclude its consideration as answering the description "arising out of".
…
It seems clear that the expression "attributable to" in each case involves an element of causation. The cause need not be the sole or dominant cause: it is sufficient to show "attributability" if the cause is one of a number of causes provided it is a contributing cause. Under s.101(1)(b), it is sufficient to show "attributability" if a member's war service is a contributing cause to the incapacity or death in respect of which the claim is made.
6. In Repatriation Commission v Tuite (1993) 29 ALD 609 at 614 the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld the finding by this Tribunal that a temporal connection between smoking and service was insufficient, and that features of camp life caused the commencement of smoking in that case.
7. Justice Selway held in Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711 (16 July 2003) that two preconditions other than causation must be dealt with before step one of the methodology set out in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82, is followed. There is no dispute in this case that Mr Cartwright was a veteran who has died and Mrs Cartwright is his widow.
8. The next pre-condition is to identify, on the balance of probabilities, the “kind of death” the veteran suffered (see 120A(2) and 120A(4) of the Act). There can be multiple medical conditions that contribute to a particular death in the sense of a medical cause that expedited the death. If a medical condition contributed to the death and is relevantly related to service then that is sufficient to establish entitlement to pension (see Hancock [2003] FCA 711 at [8]-[9]). Again, Mr Cartwright’s kind of death is not in dispute.
9. For a claim relating to "operational service", made on or after 1 June 1994, the death will be war-caused unless the Tribunal is satisfied to the contrary beyond reasonable doubt (see s 120(1) as qualified by s 120(3) and s120A).
10. Where there is a relevant Statement of Principles (“SOP”), the Tribunal must apply the test prescribed by s120A(3) of the Act, as explained in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 as follows:
“1 The Tribunal must consider all the material which is before it and determine whether that material points to a hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person. No question of fact finding arises at this stage. If no such hypothesis arises, the application must fail.
2 If the material does raise such a hypothesis, the Tribunal must then ascertain whether there is in force an SOP determined by the Authority under s 196B(2) or (11). If no such SOP is in force, the hypothesis will be taken not to be reasonable and, in consequence, the application must fail.
3 If an SOP is in force, the Tribunal must then form the opinion whether the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one. It will do so if the hypothesis fits, that is to say, is consistent with the "template" to be found in the SOP. The hypothesis raised before it must thus contain one or more of the factors which the Authority has determined to be the minimum which must exist, and be related to the person’s service (as required by ss 196B(2)(d) and (e)). If the hypothesis does contain these factors, it could neither be said to be contrary to proved or known scientific facts, nor otherwise fanciful. If the hypothesis fails to fit within the template, it will be deemed not to be “reasonable” and the claim will fail.
4 The Tribunal must then proceed to consider under s 120(1) whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death was not war-caused, or in the case of a claim for incapacity, that the incapacity did not arise from a war-caused injury. If not so satisfied, the claim must succeed. If the Tribunal is so satisfied, the claim must fail. It is only at this stage of the process that the Tribunal will be required to find facts from the material before it. In so doing, no question of onus of proof or the application of any presumption will be involved.”
11. As Selway J said in Hancock, the second sentence of paragraph 2 of the Federal Court’s prescription in Deledio was obiter, and is not correct. Where no SOP is in force, the veteran’s application will not necessarily fail, and is to be determined in accordance with ss 120(3) and 120(1) of the Act, and in accordance with the approach explained in cases such as Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564. However, that is not the case here as is discussed later.
12. Mrs Cartwright’s case depends on an hypothesis that her husband’s drinking habit began or increased as a consequence of his operational service which caused hypertension which in turn caused IHD. The next proposition is that his consumption of alcohol satisfied the requirements of the SOP for Hypertension which in turn satisfies the SOP for IHD.
13. It is agreed that the relevant Statement of Principles determined pursuant to s 196B(2) of the Act in respect of IHD is Instrument No 53 of 2003, as amended by Instrument No 9 of 2004 for operational service (“the IHD SOP”).
14. In respect of Hypertension the relevant SOP is Instrument No 35 of 2003, as amended by Instrument No 3 of 2004 for operational service (“the Hypertension SOP”).
15. The factors relied on in Mrs Cartwright’s case are:
Factor 5(a) in the IHD SOP:
5(a) the presence of hypertension before the clinical onset of
ischaemic heart disease; …
and Factor 5(b) of the Hypertension SOP:
“(b) consuming an average of at least 200 grams per week of alcohol for a continuous period of at least 6 months immediately before the clinical onset of hypertension, which cannot be decreased to less than an average of 200 grams per week of alcohol;
Issues
16. The issues between the parties are:
(a)whether or not Mr Cartwright’s drinking habit began or was increased because of his operational service,
(b)the level of his drinking habit, and
(c)the dates of clinical onset of hypertension and IHD.
Date of Effect
17. If Mrs Cartwright is successful in her claim, the date of effect would be 30 October 2002.
The material before the Tribunal
18. The following is a summary of the material before the Tribunal and does not include any findings of fact.
19. On 20 September 1982 Mr Cartwright made a claim for medical treatment and pension (T4). The disabilities that he claimed were “headaches, eyesight, hearing, chest pains, stomach pains, neck, hip, joint pains, veins in legs, back aches, shoulder aches.” At T5, T6 and T7 is the medical history and examinations that Mr Cartwright underwent on around 21 February 1983 for his claim for medical treatment and pension.
20. At T5, p 19 it is reported on 21 February 1983 that his alcohol history is as follows:
Alcohol: B/S about 1 small can/day
O/S about same amount
A/S about same. Now drinks only 2 can/ week
21. It was accepted by all parties that “B/S” represented before service, “O/S” represented on service and “A/S” represented after service.
22. At T5 p 19 Mr Cartwright’s medication at the time was Visken 1 tablet twice daily which was for high blood pressure. At T5 p20 it is reported that Mr Cartwright has been taking the Viskin, 1 tablet twice daily, for the past twelve months. At T8 p 30, Mr Cartwright stated that he felt that “mental stress” occurred during his service period.
23. At T7 p25, Dr Conomy reports on 21 February 1983, “Additional History: Moderate alcohol. No Angina.” Dr Conomy also reports the Local Medical Officer’s notes “Moderate hypertension – readily controlled with a small dose of Visken”. Dr Conomy’s opinion was “Hypertension (on therapy). Well controlled. No “target organ” damage. Disability mild.” Dr Conomy’s final diagnosis after some tests was “Hypertension (with biochemical evidence of early renal impairment). No other target organ effects. Disability mild to moderate.”
24. Dr Cull, psychiatrist, on 22 February 1983 reports “Has never been a heavy drinker and always a non-smoker.” … “Heavily involved in local social affairs over the years. Has been President and Committeeman, local R.S.L. President of Bowling Club, office holder in Golf Club” but in recent years had been less active because of pain in his legs. He also reports that he “Sleeps well without sedatives. Has no history of psychiatric treatment or of using psychotropic drugs. Denies ever suffering from depression.”
25. Mr Peter Smith, Secretary Manager of the Temora Ex-Services Memorial Club, in an undated statement at T18 says: “I had known Mr Lloyd Cartwright between 1967 and 1998. During that time, I knew him to have between 7-8 middies of beer per day.”
26. In a statement dated 5 August 2003 at T21 p98, Mr Lyle O’Brien states that he has known Mr Cartwright since 1965 and “I know for a fact that his habit steadily increased over the years. He used to complain about poor sleepless nights, tossing and turning…His drinking was a major problem for her as well as him.” He described them as being “good World War Two veteran drinking buddies” who spoke about the war on many occasions and he noticed that Mr Cartwright became very depressed when experiences in New Guineas were talked about. He said Mr Cartwright worked very hard as President of two clubs and drank alcohol on a daily basis. He does not specify how much Mr Cartwright drank or what kind of alcohol.
Mrs Cartwright’s Evidence
27. Mr and Mrs Cartwright were both from the town of Temora and Mrs Cartwright said that she knew him prior to the war and that she had known him as a young person. When he was a young person she felt that he did not have a drinking habit that she was aware of and that his mother had said that he did not drink before the war. They married on 31 January 1959.
28. Mrs Cartwright was born in 1928 and is now 77 years old. She said that she began working at the Royal Hotel in Temora in the dining room a few years after the war had finished. She later said that it was a few years before she was married. Mr Cartwright was a butcher who worked over the road and drank at the Royal Hotel. She saw him at the Royal Hotel mostly when she would come from the dining room into the bar to get a drink for the cook. She stated that she saw him in the hotel nearly every afternoon after he finished work at the butcher’s at 5pm.
29. She said that when she finished work, at around 9pm, sometimes he would be there and sometimes he would go to the Temora Ex-Services Club where he was a member. Mrs Cartwright said that she was not there to observe him all the time but that he would drink seven or eight drinks at the Royal Hotel. When Mrs Cartwright first began to work at the hotel, Mr Cartwright was married to another woman but as she got closer to Mr Cartwright she obtained a closer knowledge of his drinking habits.
30. According to Mrs Cartwright she felt that his drinking habits did not change or vary much as they became closer. He continued to drink at the Royal Hotel and the Temora Ex-Services Club on a daily basis. He was President of the Temora Ex-Services Club for 10 years or more and inaugural president of the bowling club section.
31. Mrs Cartwright did concede in cross-examination that she could not observe him at all times and that she could only estimate from what she saw at the Royal Hotel and what people told her. She mainly knew about his drinking via the amount of money he spent. The people who told her of her husband’s drinking habits were Mr Smith and Mr O’Brien. She had met Mr O’Brien “a couple of times at army reunions”. Mr Smith told her that Mr Cartwright drank a considerable amount at the Ex-Services Club. She said Mr Smith’s letter to which is in evidence was requested by Mr Bak, an ex-servicemen’s representative.
32. She said that that he had 15 middies a day. He had 7-8 middies at the Royal Hotel and 7-8 middies at the Ex-Services Club. He also had a glass of wine with her at dinner. This level of drinking she said did not vary much the whole time they were married and that this sometimes caused him to be argumentative but never abusive. She had never seen him drink 15 middies but that was how much she believed that he drank. She would often talk to him about his drinking but it had no effect. Later she said he drank more during the last years of his life but in cross-examination said that his drinking did not change after 1981.
33. In the Widow Report – Alcohol Questionnaire, which was completed on 22 January 1999 (T12), Mrs Cartwright reported that her husband drank beer but it was unknown how much the veteran consumed on each occasion. Mrs Cartwright reports that he drank up till one month before his death and until one month prior to his death he was drinking 2-3 glasses of beer per day.
34. In the Widow Report – Alcohol Questionnaire, which was completed on 30 January 2003 (T17), Mrs Cartwright now reports that her husband drank beer and wine. On each occasion she now reports that he drank “4-5 middies + 4 x 4 oz glasses of wine” and that Mr Cartwright was drinking this everyday. There is an additional comment at the foot of the page in response to if the veterans alcohol consumption changed. The note states “The older he got, the more he consumed. 7-8 middies a day since 1972 and a couple of wines and spirits.” It is also recorded that Mr Cartwright drank as he had “nightmares associated from WW2 incidents, He drank to try to forget”.
35. Mrs Cartwright said that the handwriting in the Widow’s Questionnaires at T12 and T17 is not hers but that the signatures on those pages are. Someone else had filled out the forms based on information that she has provided and then she has signed them.
36. She felt that the information about his drinking 4 glasses of wine in T17 was wrong as Mr Cartwright used to have only one glass of wine at night with dinner. She also said that the first form had been completed with Sydney Legacy just after her husband’s death and it was a very emotional time for her. When asked why Mr Cartwright gave a history of alcohol consumption he did to the DVA in 1983, she said “he just didn’t like anybody to know much about him”.
37. Mrs Cartwright also described her husband’s sleeplessness which she first noticed on their honeymoon. The nightmares continued for the whole time that they were married until not long before he died. Mrs Cartwright would wake him up and say that they were throwing grenades at him. She said that he never spoke to anyone about the nightmares because he was too ashamed to admit it. He had too much pride to talk about his war experiences and he would say that it is in the past. She felt that her husband’s pride did not always allow him to talk frankly about the war or how much he drank.
38. Mrs Cartwright felt that Mr Cartwright drank more during the last years of his life. Mr Cartwright retired in approximately 1981 and from then on he spent a lot of time at the Ex-Services Club but not at the Royal Hotel.
39. She gave evidence that it was in the middle of the 1970’s that her husband began to suffer from headaches and that she occasionally went with him to the local doctor Dr Margaret Mead.
Evidence of Associate Professor Richards
40. A report of Associate Professor Richards, cardiologist, dated 14 December 2004 was before the Tribunal (Exhibit A1). Professor Richards interviewed Mrs Cartwright and examined the medical files of Mr Cartwright to prepare this report. He reports that Mrs Cartwright recalled that her husband had suffered hypertension since the mid 1970’s when he began to see Dr Mead and that he had been treated with Visken in the 1970s .He noted that it was also documented in 1983 when the department conducted its medical history and examination. In relation to IHD, he said that Mrs Cartwright recalled her husband’s first experiencing angina in 1993 and he proceeded to surgical coronary revascularisation at St Vincent’s Private Hospital in October 1998, where he subsequently died.
41. He states:
From the evidence available to me, it appears that Mr Cartwright experience terrifying nightmares related to his military service, and that he developed a drinking habit during or after his military service, which persisted until his death.
It is my opinion that hypertension since the 1970’s was caused or exacerbated by alcohol intake which in turn was a result of his operational service.
Consequently, it is my opinion that ischaemic heart disease in this case was caused or aggravated by hypertension which was war caused. Accordingly, it is my opinion that death following surgical revascularisation for ischaemic heart disease was war caused through hypertension due to alcohol consumption secondary to war service.
Evidence of Professor O’Rourke
42. Professor O’Rourke, cardiologist, prepared a report dated 21 January 2005, (Exhibit R1). It is unclear which documents Professor O’Rourke had as the letter referred to in his report describing a “document set” was not tendered. He did not interview Mrs Cartwright. He stated:
I believe that the clinical onset of hypertension was in 1982. The comprehensive examination of Mr Cartwright in 1983 noted that he had been treated for hypertension over the previous twelve months. ….
I believe that none of the Statement of Principles for hypertension can be satisfied in this case. There is evidence given for heavy alcohol intake in Mr Cartwright’s latter years … At the time of Mr Cartwright’s onset of hypertension, he was drinking little… Heavy alcohol intake was not present before the onset of hypertension.
43. Professor O’Rourke concluded that the clinical onset of Ischaemic heart disease was in 1998.
44. There is also a report from Professor O’Rourke dated 24 January 2005 commenting on the report of Professor Richards (Exhibit R1). He notes that the information given to Professor Richards about alcohol intake during and after service, and the onset of Ischaemic heart disease does not accord with information in the clinical file and that he disagrees with Professor Richards’s opinion that IHD in this case was caused or aggravated by hypertension which was war caused. He says that the Hypertension SOP is not satisfied, specifically factor 5(b).
Does the material before the Tribunal point to a hypothesis connecting the death with Mr Cartwright’s service?
45. We conclude that the material set out above points to an hypothesis relevantly connecting Mr Cartwright’s death and his service. The hypothesis is as follows:
46. (a) Mr Cartwright’s drinking began or increased because of his war service. The material going to this was:
oMrs Cartwright’s evidence that his mother had said that he did not drink at all before the war and that he did drink when he came back.
oThat he suffered from nightmares about the war their whole married life and Mr O’Brien’s statement that he used to become depressed if talking about experiences during the war and had trouble sleeping. Mrs Cartwright’s evidence that Mr Cartwright did not like to talk about his experiences during the war, the nightmares or his drinking habit and that he drank to forget.
47. (b) That Mr Cartwright drank somewhere between 7-8 middies a day to 15 middies a day after the War. The material going to this aspect was:
oMr Smith’s and Mr O’Brien’s statements about his drinking.
oThe Widow’s Questionnaires completed by Mrs Cartwright
oMrs Cartwright’s oral evidence.
48. (c) That his drinking caused or contributed to his hypertension which caused or contributed to his death from IHD:
oProfessor O’Rourke and Associate Professor Richards agreed that the cause of death was IHD disease resulting from hypertension.
Statements of Principle
49. It is not disputed that there are relevant SOPs in force as set out above. The next question is whether the hypothesis is consistent with the SOP. Factor 5(b) of the Hypertension SOP requires the consumption of “an average of at least 200 grams per week of alcohol for a continuous period of at least 6 months immediately before the clinical onset of hypertension, which cannot be decreased to less than an average of 200 grams per week of alcohol.”
50. The meaning of “clinical onset” was considered by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331. There, the Court referred to the analysis of the Tribunal in Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668, in which Senior Member Dwyer concluded (at 670) that:
“... there is a clinical onset of a disease, either when a person becomes aware of some feature or symptom which enables a doctor to say the disease was present at that time, or when a finding is made on investigation which is indicative to a doctor of the disease being present at that time.”
51. The various dates of clinical on-set of hypertension pointed to in the material are the 1970s (Professor Richards), and 1982 (T5 and T7 and Professor O’Rourke).
52. There is evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Cartwright drank between 7-15 middies of beer a day from after the war until just before his death which includes the 1970s and 1982.
53. A middy of beer contains approximately 10g of alcohol. It follows that:
·4 middies a day for 7 days a week = 10 x 4 x 7 = 280 g of alcohol per week
·7 middies a day for 7 days a week = 10 x 7 x 7 = 490 g of alcohol per week.
·15 middies a day for 7 days a week = 10 x 15 x 7 = 1,050 g of alcohol per week.
54. The hypothesis is consistent with factor 5(b) of the SOP on the basis of those levels of alcohol consumption and either of the dates of clinical onset in the material before the Tribunal.
55. Factor 5(a) of the IHD SOP requires the presence of Hypertension before the clinical onset of IHD. The dates of clinical onset in the evidence are 1993 (Professor Richards) and 1998 (Professor O’Rourke). Both dates are after the dates raised for the clinical onset of hypertension. The hypothesis is consistent with the IHD SOP.
56. The Tribunal is satisfied in accordance with the third step of Deledio that the hypothesis is reasonable as it is consistent with the “template” found within the SOPs. That is, Mr Cartwright’s death was caused by IHD which was caused by hypertension which was related to his alcohol intake which increased or began following his experiences during service which caused him some anxiety and which continued at a level that relevantly satisfied the Hypertension SOP.
57. It follows that pursuant to s 120A(3) of the Act, the hypothesis connecting Mr Cartwright’s Ischaemic heart disease and hypertension with the circumstances of his operational service is reasonable.
58. The Tribunal now turns to the fourth step of Deledio. This involves making findings of fact from the material before us, bearing in mind that the claim will succeed unless we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining that Mr Cartwright’s death was war-caused as provided by s 120(1).
59. In Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 at 571, Mason CJ, Gaudron and McHugh JJ said:
“If a reasonable hypothesis is established, sub-s.(1) of s.120 is applied. The claim will succeed unless:
(a)one or more of the facts necessary to support the hypothesis are disproved beyond reasonable doubt; or
(b)the truth of another fact in the material is inconsistent with the hypothesis, is proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus disproving, beyond reasonable doubt, the hypothesis.”
60. We prefer the evidence derived directly from Mr Cartwright about his alcohol consumption during his medical testing in 1983 to the evidence of Mrs Cartwright, Mr Smith and Mr O’Brien. Mrs Cartwright’s evidence has altered over time and during her oral evidence. In oral evidence she gave various estimates of his alcohol consumption and differing opinions about whether it remained the same or increased during his life. There is further inconsistency with and between the two Alcohol Questionnaires that she completed earlier. For example, in oral evidence the evidence was that Mr Cartwright never drank spirits but the alcohol questionnaire signed by Mrs Cartwright indicates that he drank spirits when he was older. Her evidence about when she first saw Mr Cartwright in the hotel was also inconsistent. She said that it was just after World War II and then later it was about two years before they married. We conclude that Mrs Cartwright rarely attended the Ex-Services Club or the hotel with her husband after they married and never saw him drink 4 or 15 middies in one sitting. She does not know what his alcohol consumption was and was relying on what Mr Smith and Mr O’Brien told her about his drinking.
61. Mr Smith and Mr O’Brien were not cross examined. They have known Mr Cartwright since the 1960s in the context of the local RSL Club of which he was president and a committee member. Mr O’Brien said that Mr Cartwright’s drinking had increased over the years and Mr Smith it had been the same. Mr O’Brien provided no quantity of alcohol consumption.
62. Mrs Cartwright said that he did not tell anyone about his nightmares because he was ashamed and he gave incorrect quantities of alcohol consumption because he did not like people knowing much about him. That seems quite inconsistent with his application to then Department of Repatriation and Compensation for several conditions and the extensive information he provided to various doctors, apparently without any difficulty or hesitation. It was argued that before service that there were no cans and therefore the alcohol history was not valid. However whether or not there were cans at that time, we find that they represent the volume of drink that is consumed.
63. Mr Cartwright worked well as a butcher apparently from 1947 until 1981 when he retired because he suffered from varicose veins. There is no evidence that his alcohol drinking caused any difficulty. He functioned well, having a very active role in his community outside his working life.
64. The Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the facts necessary to support the hypothesis as set out above have been disproved. We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at the date of clinical onset of hypertension, which we find on the contemporaneous records was 1982, Mr Cartwright was not drinking the amount of alcohol specified in factor 5(b) of the Hypertension SOP.
Conclusion
65. We find that the evidence does satisfy us beyond reasonable doubt that there is sufficient ground for determining that Mr Cartwright’s death was not war-caused.
Decision
66. For the above reasons, the decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the 66 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly and Dr Pat Lynch
Signed: Miss Sacha Keady
AssociateDate of Hearing 22 September 2005
Date of Decision 17 November 2005
Solicitor for the Applicant Fairbairn Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent Mr. A. Halonkin
0
11
0