Fitzsimmons and Repatriation Commission
[2001] AATA 477
•4 June 2001
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 477
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N1996/1264
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re JOAN FITZSIMMONS
Applicant
And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member
Date4 June 2001
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be set aside and in substitution therefor determines that the death of the late veteran from carcinoma of the prostate was war-caused and that the Applicant is entitled to payment of a pension with the date of effect being 20 October 1994.
…………………………………
Dr J D Campbell
Member
CATCHWORDS
Veterans' Affairs - whether Applicant's husband died of prostate cancer - whether the prostate cancer was war-caused - relevant statement of principle - whether increase in fat consumption can be related to relevant service
Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 - sections 5B, 6A, 8, 11, 13, 14, 31, 119, 120, 120A and 196B(14)
Statement of Principle Instrument No 95 of 1995
Statement of Principle Instrument No 191 of 1996
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108
Arnott v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 262
Gorton v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 286
Repatriation Commission v Thompson [2001] FCA 341
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Connors v Repatriation Commission (2000) 59 ALD 61
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108
Re Keenan and Repatriation Commission (2000) AATA 707
Byrnes v Repatrition Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr J D Campbell Member
In this application, Mrs Joan Fitzsimmons ("the Applicant") seeks a review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") dated 18 March 1995, which found that her husband's (the late veteran's) death from carcinoma of the prostate was not war caused. This decision had been reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board ("the VRB") and in a decision dated 2 July 1996, the earlier finding was affirmed.
A hearing was held before the Tribunal at Tamworth on 19 November 1997 at which the Applicant was unrepresented, but assisted by her son, Mr Fitzsimmons. The Respondent was represented by Mr Sylvestre, an advocate from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The hearing was adjourned until a day on which both parties were prepared. A further hearing was held in Sydney on 30 June 1999 at which the Applicant was represented by Ms Buss, an advocate from the Veterans' Advocacy Service. The Respondent continued to be represented by Mr Sylvestre. The Applicant presented oral evidence to the Tribunal on both hearing days, and Ms M von Koenigsmark presented oral evidence on the second day. Following the conclusion of the hearing on 30 June 1999, the hearing was adjourned, pending the outcome of a decision in the matter of the Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108. This concerned the issue of which was the appropriate Statement of Principle to be considered, when a number of statement of principles concerning a particular disease or injury may have been issued between the time of the primary determination and the time at which the Tribunal was called upon to decide the matter. Further, the matter also awaited the outcome of a number of cases concerning diet and prostrate cancer which were subject to finalisation in the last third of 2000. Finally, the Tribunal awaited the decisions in the matters of Arnott v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 262, Gorton v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 286 and Repatriation Commission v Thompson [2001] FCA 341, to assist in determining which statement of principle was to be considered in this matter. As a consequence of the findings in the cases referred to above, the Tribunal requested final submissions from each party with the final submission from the Respondent being received by the Tribunal on 6 February 2001, and from the Applicant on 12 March 2001 and 23 April 2001.
The following written material was placed in evidence before the Tribunal:
Exhibit No Description Date
T1-T15 PP1-51 Documents prepared pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
A1 Report of Ms M von Koenigsmark 19 May 1991
A2 Bundle of items (13) provided by the Applicant
A3 New Guinea Ration Scale for Combined Forces
A4 Report by Ms C Laurence and Ms J Tiddy titled "From Bully Beef to Ice cream…." Circa 1989
A5 "Animal fat in the Australian Diet, including the Armed Services' Rations in World War 2" – a scientific review for Department of Veterans' Affairs by Dr R English AO August 1998
A6 Applicants statement of facts and contentions and an amended statement of facts and contentions 8 July 1997 and 21 June 1999
A7 Letter by Mrs Fitzsimmons 22 August 1997
A8 A page of photographs
A9 Bundle of reports on diet (10)
A10 Report of Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria 14 August 1997
A11 Undated letter from Mr Robson
A12 Letter from Marius Medical Centre 14 November 1997
A13 Letter from Mr C Jagoe 28 September 1997
issues
The relevant issue in this matter is whether the death of the Applicant's late husband from carcinoma of the prostate was war-caused.
legislationThe relevant legislation in that matter is the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 ("the Act") and in particular sections 5B, 6A, 8, 11, 13, 14, 31, 119, 120, 120A, 196B(14). Statement of Principle ("SoP") Instrument No 95 of 1995 and SoP Instrument No 191 of 1996.
backgroundThe Applicant lodged a formal claim on 20 January 1995 for recognition of the death of her late husband from carcinoma of the prostate as war-caused. The Respondent denied the Applicant's claim in a decision dated 18 March 1995 (T2). The reason for the non-acceptance of the application was that a reasonable hypothesis was not raised, as none of the factors contained within SoP Instrument No 95 of 1995 dated 8 March 1995, concerning Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate, were considered to have existed. The Veterans' Review Board confirmed this decision on 2 July 1996 (T13).
On the first day of hearing before the Tribunal, in Tamworth in November 1997, the Applicant adduced evidence in relation to her late husband's pre-war and post-war diet as far as she could, in an attempt to satisfy factors contained within SoP Instrument No 191 of 1996 dated 9 December 1996. The hearing was adjourned to allow her an opportunity to consider and gain representation, and for her case to be further put at a time when it had been prepared.
The further hearing on 30 June 1999 saw the Applicant attempting to satisfy the requirements in the later SoP, namely Instrument No 191 of 1996. Significant evidence was presented in pursuit of the Applicant seeking to satisfy the factors nominated, and a hypothesis postulated which related to Instrument No 191 of 1996.
The matter was again adjourned, awaiting the outcomes of the decisions mentioned earlier in this decision, and for both parties to make final submissions on this particular matter.
evidenceThe Applicant stated that she met and married her late husband in the latter half of 1946. She stated that evidence as to his pre-war dietary habits and general activities, came from discussions between them and from individual sources who have described to her the circumstances existing at her late husband's place of employment, prior to his enlistment in 1942 at the age of 21.
The Applicant described her late husband as having told her that his family moved to work as farm labourers at Goonoo Goonoo Station outside of Tamworth during the depression years. Further, she stated that her late husband commenced working at age 14, and the duties involved general labouring, fencing and general activities associated with tending cattle and sheep on a large property. His duties involved him being away from the homestead for extended periods.
In an undated letter, Mr Starr, a co-worker of the late veteran at Goonoo Goonoo Station prior to the war (Exhibit A2), describes the circumstances existing in 1936 at Goonoo Goonoo, in the following terms:
· wage was 33 shillings per week paid monthly, from which deductions were made for accommodation, and payment for any meat received at 2 ½ pence per pound;
· 12 families were present at the station, with six to ten children in each family, one sheep a week and one beast a month was killed and divided between the families; and
· salted meat and damper were the stable diet away from the homestead, together with any rabbit's etc trapped during the absence.
In a letter dated 18 November 1998 (Exhibit A2), Mrs Edmunds, who as young girl, named McPherson, lived on the Goonoo Goonoo Station at the time of the late veteran, generally stated that:
life at Goonoo Goonoo involved a lot of sport and social events;
they grew their own fruit and vegetables and made their own bread/butter; and
meat was a luxury and a piece of steak was shared.
The Applicant indicated that in the post war years, her husband had taught her to cook and as such she learnt to cook the things he most enjoyed. Further, between the years 1956 and 1979 she worked at a take-away and as a consequence chicken and chips were common items in the family diet.
In an undated letter, Mrs K Jowett, a daughter of the late veteran described her late father's strict adherence to punctuality at, and of, meal times, and his meticulous behaviour in relation to dress (Exhibit A2). This was further confirmed in a letter written by his son, Robert, on 15 November 1998 (Exhibit A2) and Ms B Wheeler, a daughter of the late veteran, in an undated letter (Exhibit A2).
Ms M von Koenigsmark, a consultant dietitian in her report dated 19 May 1999, analysed the late veteran's post war diet in two phases, namely pre-retirement (1946-1981) and post retirement (1981-1989) and stated the following opinions (Exhibit A1):
" Based on the above examples, it is my opinion that Mr Fitzsimmons' post-war animal fat consumption was equal to or greater that 70 gm per day before his retirement in 1981. His consumption of saturated (animal fat) between 1981 and 1989 is questionable, depending on his choice of spread which cannot be determined.
Did that level of animal fat consumption persist for at least 20 years prior to the onset of his carcinoma of the prostate?
As indicated above, it is my opinion that at least 70g saturated fat was consumed from 1947 up until 1981. If butter was used after 1981, the 70g of animal fat was consumed for at least 20 years prior to onset of his carcinoma of the prostate. If margarine was used after 1981, it is possible that his animal fat intake was below 70g per day for 8 of these 20 years.
Had Mr Fitzsimmons' post-war animal fat consumption increased by at least 40%, with reference to his pre-war animal fat consumption?
English in her scientific review of 1998 cited a total fat level of the adult male civilian diet before World War 2 as being in the range of 130-149g/head/day. Animal fat intake was estimated to be in the range 114-130g/head/day. This data was derived from a survey of food consumption of families living in the capital cities and did not include rural families.
Witness statements 2, 6, 13 allude to the small amount of meat which was apparently available to families on Goonoo Goonoo station. Statement 13 mentions that bread and butter were home made. This may indicate that there was access to fresh milk. From these statements it is not possible to estimate Mr Fitzsimmons' animal intake. Other possible sources of fat may have included milk, butter, dripping, poultry and eggs.
Mr Fitzsimmons' weight history may give a clue to an increased fat intake. It would be reasonable to assume that his job on Goonoo Goonoo station involved physical activity and it is reported in witness statements that he regularly played sport. His weight "at enlistment" was 144 lb.
It would also be reasonable to assume that as a front line combatant in New Guinea, Mr Fitzsimmons had high-energy requirements. It is noted that he was discharged from the Army weighing 160lb, an increase of 16 lb. It is my opinion that this increase in weight, in spite of increased energy requirements, may have been due to an increased fat intake during the war.
English in her scientific review estimated the rations for Pacific Islands and New Guinea to have contained 113 g animal fat.
It is not possible with the available information to form an opinion as to whether Mr Fitzsimmons' post-war animal fat consumption increased by at least 40%, with reference to his pre-war animal fat consumption?
Was any increase post-war consumption of animal fats causally related to the circumstances of Mr Fitzsimmons' war-service, whether by the food he was given on service, the habits he formed, or otherwise?
From the witness statements, it would appear that Mr Fitzsimmons had a very structured and rigid pattern of ordering the affairs of the family. This applied particularly to food to be served and mealtimes. His life prior to war service does not appear to reflect these characteristics.
If it is accepted that Mr Fitzsimmons' fat intake did increase after his war service and thereafter, there are some reasons, which could be proposed:I.His war service influenced his food choices and habits. It would appear that meat intake did increase during and post war service compared to pre-war.
II.His marriage and family environment influenced his diet. It is recognised that marriage can often influence a husband's food intake. However, Mrs Fitzsimmons states that her husband was more of an influence on her diet than the reverse.
III.Greater food availability and more secure income may have influenced his diet.
I am unable to form an opinion on this question."
In oral evidence, Ms von Koenigsmark again placed particular significance on the late veterans' weight gain during service (144 lbs to 160 lbs on discharge) and that this weight gain had occurred during a period of active service. Further Ms von Koenigsmark stated:
· that fat contains the flavour component of food;
· that the body becomes accustomed to high fat levels;
· that there is adjustment to high fat levels and this carries on; and
· that eating patterns are established prior to the age of 16.
In considering the food intake of rural communities, Ms von Koenigsmark made the following comments:
· they have greater access to home grown food;
· access to milk and butter;
· access to game food; and
access to fresh meat.
submissions
the applicant:
The advocate for the Applicant contends that the late veteran had a less than average intake of animal fat compared with the national average intake prior to World War II; that the late veteran was exposed to a war time diet in New Guinea which had a higher animal fat content than the average Australian diet for the period; that he became accustomed to the higher animal fat content in the diet and that this habit carried through to his post war Australian life; that in his post war Australian life the late veteran had increased his animal fat consumption by at least 40% and to at least 70 gm/day for at least 20 years, before the clinical onset of the late veteran's carcinoma of the prostate.
Further, the Applicant contends that as a consequence of the hypothesis postulated, and which has been derived from the facts or circumstances nominated in evidence, the late veteran satisfies factor 1(b) of SoP Instrument No 191 of 1996. As such, the hypothesis should be considered a reasonable hypothesis, and the condition of cancer of the prostate and the late veterans' death be considered war caused. In the absence of the Respondent being unable to disprove any of the facts that constitute the hypothesis, or prove other facts inconsistent with facts that constitute the hypothesis, beyond reasonable doubt, the Applicant contends that the late veterans' death was war-caused.
respondent:The Respondent contends that the relevant SoP in this matter is Instrument No 95 of 1995; that the late veteran does not satisfy any of the factors contained within that Instrument; and that as a reasonable hypothesis has not been established, the late veteran's death cannot be related to the late veteran's period of operational service.
consideration and findingsIn this matter the Tribunal notes that the late veteran died in December 1994, and that the cause of death was carcinoma of the prostate, which had been present for at least five years, with evidence of metastases being present for the last two years. There is no contention in relation to the cause of death being carcinoma of the prostate.
In considering all the material placed before it, the Tribunal concludes that the following facts are raised or may be inferred from the material:
(a) that the late veterans' pre war dietary intake of animal fat is unable to be accurately quantified in the absence of the necessary data;
(b) nevertheless, that the facts raised by his wife, from memory of conversations with her late husband concerning his pre-war employment and dietary activities, coupled with facts raised by various contemporaries of the late veteran concerning meat availability and employment activities, during his pre-war employment at Goonoo Goonoo station, point to the late veteran having, at best, a pre-war average daily animal fat intake for a rural worker. It is more likely however, by virtue of limited meat availability and prolonged absences from the homestead, that the late veteran had a daily animal fat intake less than the average for a rural worker;
(c) that the late veteran's weight on enlistment was 144 lbs, with height 70 inches, would allow an inference to be drawn that at age 21 he was not carrying any excess weight;
(d) that the pre-war average animal fat consumption for civilian adult males in capital cities was in the range of 114-130 gms/head/day;
(e) that the late veteran was exposed to a dietary ration scale in New Guinea, which is estimated to have contained at least 113mgs of animal fat per day and from February 1944, 131.8 gms per day (Exhibit A5). Further, the late veterans' weight increase to 160 lbs at discharge, permits an inference to be drawn that his service weight increase was diet related, or alternatively activity had decreased during his war service, this being an unlikely scenario in view of his operational service in New Guinea; and
(f) that facts raised by Ms von Koenigsmark clearly point to the late veteran having a daily average animal fat consumption in excess of 70 mgs for at least 20 years before the clinical onset of Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate.
In turning to the issue of hypothesis in this matter, the Tribunal is guided by what constitutes a reasonable hypothesis from decisions in earlier cases, namely:
· in Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364 at 373 where the Full Court stated:
"A 'reasonable' hypothesis involves more than a mere possibility. It is a hypothesis pointed to by the facts, even though not proved upon the balance of probabilities."
· in Connors v Repatriation Commission (2000) 59 ALD 61, Kenny J stated at 68:
"If an essential element in a hypothesis is not raised (or pointed to) by the material, then that hypothesis is not raised by that material…"
Kenny J further stated at 70:
"Whatever the situation may have been in relation to claims before 1 June 1944, the effect of s 120A(3), where it applies, is that a hypothesis must be supported by evidence pointing to each individual element in a SoP for the hypothesis to be reasonable: cf Shelton v Repatriation Commission (1999) 85 FCR 587."
The hypothesis formulated in this matter connects the late veteran's death from carcinoma of the prostate, with the late veteran's increased consumption of animal fat during war service and the continuance thereafter of an increased daily consumption of animal fat beyond 70 mgs per day. The Tribunal accepts that there are facts raised by, or pointed to, by the material that permit such a hypothesis to be raised.
The next consideration is for the Tribunal to decide whether the hypothesis raised is a reasonable hypothesis. The hypothesis raised will be considered reasonable if the facts raised or pointed to, by the material satisfy the template nominated in the relevant SoP. In this matter there has been particular argument between the parties as to which SoP is relevant in this matter. The Respondent argues that the relevant SoP is Instrument No 95 of 1995, dated 8 March 1995, concerning Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate. The Respondent cites the finding in Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 98 FCR 108 as authority for the proposition that the relevant SoP is the one in existence at the time of the primary determination.
The Applicant submits that pursuant to section 31 of the Act, which clearly defines the beneficial intent of the particular Act, the relevant SoP is the one in existence at the time of the Tribunal's decision unless a more beneficial SoP existed at the time of the primary decision.
The Tribunal, in deciding the question of which is the relevant SoP to be applied notes the following authorities:
(a) the Full Court in Keeley (supra) which held that, subject to a contrary intention it is to be presumed that the SoP to be applied is that which is in force at the time of the primary decision by the Repatriation Commission;
(b) the Full Court in Arnott (supra) stated at paragraph 17 of Merkel J, with which the other two judges concurred:
" It seems to be implicit, if not explicit, in the approach of the Full Court in Keeley that a contrary intention might be found if the terms of a later SoP are more beneficial to a claimant than the terms of the SoP which it replaced. Of course, the contrary intention must be discerned from all of the terms of the later SoP and not just particular aspects of it."
(c) in Gorton (supra), Stone J concluded at paragraph 24 of his judgement:
"The decision of the Court in Keeley can thus be seen as an exception to this position, dictated by the beneficial nature of the legislature to which the Court referred. The exception applies to preserve the benefit of an existing entitlement to be assessed in the context of a more favourable Statement of Principles. In my opinion, the AAT is obliged to consider the applicant's claim in the context of the Statement of Principles No 25 of 1999 unless Instrument 83 is more favourable. If the latter position is the case, then the applicant's claim must be considered in the context of Instrument 83."
(d) in Thompson (supra), both Drummond J and Emmett J concluded that the decision in Keeley (supra) was relevant and was authority for the principle:
"that upon making an application to the Tribunal for review of a determination by the Board, the pension claimant acquires an accrued right to have the Board's determination reviewed by the Tribunal in accordance with the law then in force".
Both judges also addressed the section 31 provision and concluded that it could be invoked if an amending SoP was more beneficial.
In analysing these particular judgements, the Tribunal observes that there are two distinctive positions being adopted. The first position, nominated by the Full Court, was that the Tribunal, in conducting its review, should apply the SoP which was in existence at the time of the primary decision, with the exception to that general rule being an implicit or explicit contrary intention discernible from a later SoP. The alternate position, adopted by Stone J, was that the applicable SoP was the one in existence at the time of the Tribunal's decision, unless a SoP more favourable to the Applicant had existed, and in this regard section 31 of the Act would permit one of the earlier, more beneficial, SoPs to be applied.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the two positions of "accrued rights" and "beneficial nature of the legislation" result in different starting points for determining which SoP is to be applied, but by virtue of the beneficial legislation move to a common position where the applicable SoP is the one most beneficial to the Applicant.
As the Tribunal is bound by the Full Court authority, it does, in this matter, believe it necessary to nominate the SoP in existence at the time of primary decision as being the applicable SoP, unless a contrary intention is demonstrated in a later SoP or whereby taking into account the beneficial nature of the legislation, a later and more beneficial SoP has been promulgated.
In this matter the SoP Instrument No 95 of 1995 dated 8 March 1995 was the applicable SoP at the time of the primary decision. An analysis of the SoP reveals that the SoP appeared to address particular causal factors relating to exposure to herbicides in Vietnam and inability to obtain clinical management of Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate during the period of operational service.
On 9 December 1996 SoP Instrument No 191 of 1996 was promulgated. This instrument made particular amendments to the earlier SoP, and in so doing introduced the causal connection between operational service, daily animal fat consumption, increased consumption which continued after service, and Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate. By so doing, it is clear to the Tribunal, that the amended SoP had a specific intention to introduce a new causal connection, and this in the Tribunal's view demonstrates a contrary intention that the earlier SoP should continue to be applied. The Tribunal also adds that such a contrary intention should be inferred where the Repatriation Medical Authority alters factors detailing causal connection to reflect congruence with evolving medical knowledge on such issues. In the circumstances of this matter, the Tribunal notes that it is also more beneficial to the Applicant, as the late veteran would not have satisfied the narrowly defined factors nominated in the earlier SoP.
In moving to a consideration of whether the hypothesis raised is a reasonable hypothesis, the Tribunal moves to a consideration of whether the material relating to the late veteran satisfies the template nominated in Instrument No 191 of 1996 and in particular factor 1(b), a factor which has been continued in later SoPs relating to Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate.
From the material before it, the Tribunal has already indicated at paragraph 22 what facts are raised, or may be pointed to, by the material. In addressing each element of factor 1(b), which states:
"Increasing animal fat consumption by at least 40% and to at least 70 gms/day for at least 20 years before the clinical onset of malignant neoplasm of the prostate…",
The Tribunal observes that the material has raised facts which satisfy the consumption of animal fat of at least 70 gms a day by the late veteran for at least 20 years before the clinical onset of malignant neoplasm of the prostate.
In addressing the remaining element, namely an increase in animal fat consumption by at least 40%, the Tribunal notes the findings in the matter of Re Keenan and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 707. Whilst noting Keenan (supra), where the issue of scarce data relating to pre-war dietary habits was considered and an average animal fat consumption for metropolitan individuals was accepted, the Tribunal is left to consider what the material in this matter raises or points to as regards this element. The material clearly points to facts that would indicate that as a minimum the late veteran was consuming at least 132 gms of animal fat by February 1944. The material relating to his pre-war diet, points to a lean individual, receiving a minimal daily meat intake, and a working lifestyle that often removed him from normal domestic rations. In such circumstances, and considering his weight to height ratio on enlistment at age 21, the Tribunal concludes that such material points to the late veteran having a moderate reduction in his daily intake of animal fat, in that he experienced a depleted daily meat ration when at base, and when fencing or other duties away from base any exposure to animal fat related to salted beef or trapped rabbits. The Tribunal, in noting that the pre-war civilian capital city male counterpart was found to have a dietary daily animal fat intake of 114-130 gms, the material in this matter points to the late veteran having a daily animal fat intake equating to a moderate reduction on this amount. In such circumstances, it is evident that the material in this matter points to a situation were it can be properly inferred that the late veteran's pre-war diet contained a daily animal fat intake in the range of 97-110 gms at 15% reduction and 80-91 gms at 30% reduction, even when accepting the capital city male daily rate of animal fat consumption pre-war of 114-130 gms.
In such circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that such material points to more than "a mere possibility" that the late veteran's daily animal fat intake increased by at least 40%, from his pre-war intake, to a minimally defined intake in February 1944 when receiving service rations in New Guinea. In considering issues in this matter, the Tribunal has been mindful of both sections 31 and 119 of the Act and has acted accordingly, giving due consideration to the availability of pre-war material relating to diet and the beneficial nature of the legislation.
As a consequence of the Tribunal's considerations, the Tribunal concludes that the template is met, the hypothesis raised is a reasonable hypothesis and that section 120(3) is satisfied.
In turning to section 120(1) the Tribunal finds that the Respondent has not disproved one or more of the facts necessary to support the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt or that the truth of a fact inconsistent with the hypothesis is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
As a consequence of the Tribunal's findings, the death of the late veteran from carcinoma of the prostate is found to be war-caused. Further, the Applicant is entitled to a pension.
determinationThe Tribunal determines that the decision under review be set aside and in substitution therefor determines that:
(a) the late veterans' death from carcinoma of the prostate is war-caused; and
(b) the Applicant is entitled to a pension with date of effect being 20 October 1994.
I certify that the 40 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr J D Campbell, Member
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 19 November 1997, 30 June 1999
Date of Decision 4 June 2001
Solicitor for the Applicant Ms J Buss
Solicitor for the Respondent Mr Sylvestre
2
9
0