Elaine Cribb and Repatriation Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 84

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/4481

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION )
Re Elaine Cribb

Applicant

And

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Jill Toohey

Date5 February 2010

PlaceSydney

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Senior Member

6.      Mrs Cribb says it is possible that her husband was exposed to secondary radiation from Hiroshima when he was in Japan for 12 months from April 1946 but she concedes that none of the factors in the Statement of Principles for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is made out.  She also concedes that her husband’s hypertension was not related to his service.

7.      Mrs Cribb contends that the amended death certificate and other medical evidence support the conclusion that ischaemic heart disease was related to his service and caused, or contributed to, her husband’s death. 

8.      By s 13 of the Act, Mrs Cribb will be entitled to a widow’s pension if her husband’s death was “war-caused”.  It will be “war-caused” if it satisfies any of the criteria in s 8(1) of the Act, in particular if it “arose out of, or was attributable to” his service.

The issue

9.      I have to decide:

(i)what was Mr Cribb’s cause of death (ss 120A(2) and (4) of the Act refer to ‘kind of death’)

(ii)if ischaemic heart disease caused, or contributed to, Mr Cribb’s death, whether there was a connection between that kind of death and his war service.

10.     The cause of death is a preliminary question of fact to be determined on the balance of probabilities based on the medical diagnosis and other evidence: Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711; Collinsv Repatriation Commission [2009] FCAFC 90; Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307.

The family’s evidence

11.     Mr and Mrs Cribb married in 1957 after he had been discharged from service.  Mrs Cribb understands from his family that he did not smoke before he enlisted at the age of 18.  He worked as a shop assistant and was poorly paid, and his family were strict Methodists and smoking and drinking were prohibited.

12.     Mrs Cribb says that service was a stressful, uncertain time for her husband who had a nervous disposition.  During their marriage he smoked about five cigarettes each day and smoked a pipe until he retired in 1985 when he gave up both. Mrs crib says he told her he smoked to help him relax and to cope with wartime and service conditions.

13.     Mrs Cribb’s son, Stephen Cribb, and her daughter, Patricia Bentley, have provided written statements supporting her claims.  They recall their mother complaining about their father’s smoking and they learned only quite recently that he spent about 12 months after he returned from overseas in an institution where he had electroconvulsive therapy.  They believe he was traumatised by his service and that his health was badly affected.

14.     The Commission does not dispute these claims and I have…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Elaine Cribb and Repatriation Commission and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] AATA 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Elaine Cribb and the Repatriation Commission was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on whether the late veteran's wife, Elaine Cribb, was entitled to a war widow's pension. This hinged on whether the veteran's operational service caused or contributed to his death. The veteran had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which was determined to be the direct cause of death, but not related to his service. A revised death certificate indicated ischaemic heart disease as a contributing factor, but the question was whether this condition contributed to the death in the relevant sense under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986.

The legal issues before the court included whether the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was directly caused by the veteran's service, and whether ischaemic heart disease contributed to his death in a way that would entitle the widow to a war widow's pension. The court had to consider the statutory definition of "war-caused" death and the relevant case law, including Collins v Repatriation Commission, Re Blyth and Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Cooke, and Repatriation Commission v Hancock. The court also needed to assess the effect of ischaemic heart disease on the treatment of the veteran's lymphoma and its contribution to the death.

The court found that the non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was not related to the veteran's service, and therefore did not qualify for a war-caused death pension. While ischaemic heart disease did affect the treatment of the lymphoma, it did not contribute to the death in the relevant sense. The court affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the widow was not entitled to a war widow's pension. This decision aligns with previous cases that have established the criteria for determining whether a death is war-caused for pension purposes.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the relevant case law, ensuring that the widow's entitlement to a war widow's pension was assessed according to the legal standards set out in the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986. The court's affirmation of the decision under review means that the widow's claim for a war widow's pension was rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.