Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 1015
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/0057
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re OLIVE CREAMER Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr M Denovan, Member
Mr R G Kenny, MemberDate12 November 2008
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ...................[Sgd]..................
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – widow’s pension – war-caused death – whether death of veteran by septicaemia, diverticulitis and diverticulosis was attributable to any eligible war service – standard of proof – death was not war-caused – decision under review affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 8(1), 13(1), 120(1), 120(4), 120B
Hayes v Repatriation Commission [2005] FMCA 125
REASONS FOR DECISION
12 November 2008 Dr M Denovan, Member
Mr R G Kenny, MemberINTRODUCTION
1. Mrs Creamer is the widow of a veteran who served in the Australian Army between 13 September 1941 and 3 May 1944, including service outside of Australia. The late Mr Creamer suffered from chronic airflow limitation and scars of ulcers on both legs. These were his only accepted war-caused disabilities at the time of his death, on 3 March 2005. The death certificate indicates that Mr Creamer died from septicaemia, diverticulitis and diverticulosis. Mrs Creamer sought a pension on the basis that her late husband’s death was attributable to his war service due to one or both of his accepted disabilities.
ISSUE
2. The issue that we have to decide is whether Mr Creamer’s death was related to his period of army service.
Applicant’s case
3. Mrs Creamer claimed that her late husband’s ulcer scars on his legs or his chronic airflow limitation contributed to his death. On 12 September 2007 the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed the original delegate’s decision refusing a war widow’s pension.
4. Mrs Creamer told us that her late husband developed leg ulcers whilst serving in New Guinea, and that it took seven months for them to heal. The ulcers reoccurred all his life, the most recent occasion was two years prior to his death. Mrs Creamer contended that the infection that was responsible for the original ulcers stayed in Mr Creamer’s body, and as well as causing recurrent leg ulcers, was likely responsible for a bladder infection Mr Creamer suffered from on one occasion, and for mouth ulcers that he suffered in the weeks prior to his death. Mrs Creamer contended that the infection would likely have infected other areas of his body, and could have been responsible for Mr Creamer’s diverticulitis or septicaemia or both. Mrs Creamer also contended that infection may have lead to amyloid disease, and that this condition may have contributed to Mr Creamer’s death.
5. Mrs Creamer, with the assistance of her daughter, Ms Elson, provided a number of articles downloaded from the Internet, including articles from the Mayo Clinic, that she claimed supported her contentions, and these are included in the evidence before us. One of these articles indicates that it is possible for military…
Continue reading Creamer and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Creamer and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 1015
- Case
- [2008] AATA 1015
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the relevant sections of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, particularly sections 8(1), 13(1), 120(1), 120(4), and 120B. The primary question was whether the death could be classified as war-caused, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider the standard of proof and whether the Commission's decision was supported by the evidence presented.
The court reviewed the evidence and the application of the statutory criteria. It found that the Commission had correctly applied the standard of proof required for a war-caused death and that the evidence did not sufficiently establish a link between the veteran's service and his death. The court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, holding that the death was not attributable to any eligible war service.
The final orders of the court were to affirm the decision of the Repatriation Commission, thereby denying Mrs. Creamer's claim for a widow's pension. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the veteran's war service and his death, as required by the statutory provisions.
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.