Elizabeth Rennie and Repatriation commission

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 338

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/3459

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION )
Re Elizabeth Rennie

Applicant

And

Repatriation commission

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr I Alexander, Member
Rear Admiral Horton ao, Member

Date13 May 2009

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

....................[sgd]..........................

Dr I Alexander
  Member  

Is there a reasonable hypothesis?

11.     It is common ground between the parties that Mr Rennie started smoking in 1944 when serving in  the Royal Navy and that he continued to smoke until his death in 1994.

12.     It is also agreed that in 1993 Mr Rennie was diagnosed as suffering from peripheral vascular disease and that in 1994 he was admitted to Concord Hospital where he underwent a right femoro-perineal bypass operation.

13.      Following this operation Mr Rennie developed a wound infection and treatment in the form of intravenous vancomycin was commenced.

14.     On the 30 March 1994 following an intravenous dose of vancomycin Mr Rennie suffered a cardiac arrest and died.

15.     The hypothesis proposed by the applicant is that Mr Rennie’s smoking caused his peripheral vascular disease and because  of the circumstances of his operational service he had increased his smoking during that service and for some time after and that this increase in smoking had made a material contribution to the development of his peripheral vascular disease.

16.     In support of the hypothesis in respect of the relationship between smoking and the development of peripheral vascular disease the applicant points to Repatriation Medical Authority ( the RMA) determination in the SOP concerning “Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease “  Instrument No. 65 of 2002

17.     In this SOP the RMA expresses the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease can be related to relevant service rendered by a veteran on the condition one of a number of factors must be related to any relevant service rendered by the veteran.

18.     Factor 5(a) in the SOP “smoking at least five cigarettes per day or the equivalent thereof in other tobacco products, for at least three years before the clinical onset of atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease and where smoking has ceased, the clinical onset has occurred within 20 years of cessation;…”

19.     We accept that smoking is causally connected to the development of peripheral vascular disease but note that factor 5(a) seems to imply that the onset of smoking  at a particular level and over a minimum period, rather than the accumulated amount of smoking is the relevant issue.

20.      Also in support of the hypothesis, Mrs Rennie claims that her husband had told her that he had increased his smoking during his operational service and that she had observed an increase in his smoking when he had returned from Korea.

21. After having considered the material before us we are satisfied that hypothesis proposed by the applicant is a reasonable hypothesis within the meaning of s120 of the VE Act.

Is the hypothesis…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Elizabeth Rennie 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
[2009] AATA 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Elizabeth Rennie against the Repatriation Commission involved a claim for a pension by the widow of a deceased veteran, who had served in the Royal Australian Navy. The widow argued that the veteran's death was caused by atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease, which was related to his military service. The dispute was brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had to determine whether the evidence presented before it was sufficient to establish a reasonable hypothesis that the veteran's death was war caused. This decision was then reviewed by the court, which had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was correct. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence before the Tribunal established a reasonable hypothesis that the veteran's death was war caused, and whether the Repatriation Commission had disproved that hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. The court examined the evidence and the relevant Statement of Principles to determine whether the hypothesis was established, and whether it had been disproven. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant law and made its decision based on the evidence presented. The court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, holding that the evidence did not establish a reasonable hypothesis that the veteran's death was war caused, and that the Repatriation Commission had not disproven the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. The decision was based on the relevant legal principles, including the relevant sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the relevant Statement of Principles concerning Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease No. 65 of 2002. The court also considered relevant case law, including Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Bendy, and Repatriation Commission v Hancock. The final orders of the court were that the decision under review, which was the decision of the Tribunal, was affirmed. This means that the Tribunal's decision to deny the widow's claim for a pension stood, and the court found no error in the Tribunal's decision.

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.