Collins and Repatriation Commission

Case [2008] AATA 351


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 351

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2006/333

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re JUNE COLLINS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe and Mr S E Frost, Member

Date2 May 2008

PlaceBrisbane (heard in Sydney)

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS – war widow's pension – "kind of death" – whether death war – caused – decision affirmed

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, ss 6A, 7, 13(1), 120(1), 120(3), 120A(1), 120A(3), 120A(4)

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission [1993] HCA 51; (1993) 177 CLR 564

Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711; (2003) 37 AAR 383

Repatriation Commission v Codd [2007] FCA 877; (2007) 95 ALD 619

Repatriation Commission v Deledio [1998] FCA 391; (1998) 83 FCR 82

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 May 2008 Senior Member Bernard J McCabe and Mr S E Frost, Member                  

Introduction

1.      Mrs June Collins, the applicant, is the widow of Mr Donald Collins, the veteran.  The veteran died on 30 March 2005 at the age of 83.  Mrs Collins claimed a war widow's pension on the basis that her husband's death was war-caused.  The Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) refused the claim and the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed that refusal.  Mrs Collins has applied to the Tribunal for a review of that refusal decision. 

2.      There are only two issues in dispute before the Tribunal.  The first is the "kind of death" suffered by the veteran.  The second is whether there is a connection between that kind of death and his war service.

3.      For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision under review.  This means that Mrs Collins’ appeal is unsuccessful.

The veteran’s service history

4. The veteran served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 30 January 1943 until 18 January 1946 and this constitutes eligible war service as defined in s 7 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act"). Because he served overseas during World War II, the whole of his service constitutes operational service within s 6A of the Act.

Entitlement to a war widow’s pension

5. If the veteran’s death was war-caused, then the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension by way of compensation to the applicant: s 13(1) of the Act. We must determine whether the death was war-caused having regard to ss 120 and 120A of the Act.

6. It is clear from these provisions, read together, that we must first determine the "kind of death" of the veteran before we consider the reasonableness of any hypothesis connecting the death with the circumstances of his war service. This is because the way in which we must test the reasonableness of any hypothesis depends on whether there is in force any Statement of Principles (“SoP”), determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority, in relation to the “kind of death” met by the veteran. If there is one, or more than one,…

Continue reading Collins and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Collins and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 351
Case
[2008] AATA 351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mrs. Collins appealed a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) which had dismissed her claim for a war widow's pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Mrs. Collins' husband, a former member of the Australian Defence Force, died in 2019. She contended that his death was attributable to the war service he performed between 1962 and 1972 in Vietnam. The SSAT had concluded that the death was not attributable to the war service, and therefore, Mrs. Collins was not entitled to the pension. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the SSAT's decision.

The central legal issue was whether the death of Mrs. Collins' husband was attributable to his war service. This hinged on interpreting sections 6A, 7, 13(1), 120(1), 120(3), 120A(1), 120A(3), and 120A(4) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the death resulted from injuries or diseases caused by or arising out of the war service, or if it was due to a pre-existing condition or other causes unrelated to the service. The Court also had to consider the relevant case law, including Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Hancock, Repatriation Commission v Codd, and Repatriation Commission v Deledio.

The Court examined the evidence and the SSAT's reasoning, finding that the SSAT had appropriately applied the statutory criteria and the relevant case law. The evidence indicated that Mrs. Collins' husband's death was due to a pre-existing medical condition that was not caused or exacerbated by his war service. The Court noted that the burden of proof rested on Mrs. Collins to demonstrate a causal link between the war service and the death. Given the absence of such evidence, the Court found no error in the SSAT's decision and affirmed it.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct and that Mrs. Collins' appeal should be dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and Mrs. Collins was not entitled to the war widow's pension.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.