Gloria Baldock v Repatriation Commission

Case [2007] AATA 51

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 51

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/869

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re GLORIA BALDOCK

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member

Date 7 February 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.    

........[Sgd].......

SC Fisher

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS –application for war-widows pension – operational service – claim conditions were war-caused – application of Statement of principles –anxiety disorder –malignant neoplasm of the colorectum – decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6, 7, 8, 120, 120A, 196B

Adminstative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy [1998] FCA 809
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598
Starcevich v Repatriation Commission (1987) 76 ALR 449; 14 ALD 160
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711; (2003) 37 AAR 383
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Hutton v Repatriation Commission [1998] 56 FCA (4 February 1998);(1998) 49
  ALD 8
Hillier and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897
Schmidt v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1158
Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1832
Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 412
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 77 ALD 67
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321
Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Fenner v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 27
Hill v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCAFC 23
Mines v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1331
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Parnell-Schoeneveld v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 153; (2003) 74 ALD 37
Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892
Re Ahrenfeld and Repatriation Commission (1992) 28 ALD 921Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
O’Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356

REASONS FOR DECISION

7 February 2007 Mr SC Fisher, Member       

Introduction And Background

1.      Mr Hedley Walter Keith Baldock (the veteran) was born on 30 November 1912.  The veteran married the Applicant on 16 September 1936.  The veteran served with the Royal Australian Army from 2 February 1942 until 9 January 1946.  The veteran served in the Southwest Pacific area between 3 August 1945 and 29 December 1945, and so his war service constitutes operational service.  The veteran died on 27 November 1998 aged 85 years.

2.      The Applicant is a claimant for widow’s pension.

Jurisdiction

3.      This appeal is governed by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Tribunal has jurisdiction in this appeal by virtue of sections 174 - 176 of the Act. In these Reasons for Decision, references to statutory provisions are to provisions of the Act unless the context indicates otherwise.

The Decision under Review

4.      The decision under review is a decision made by the Repatriation Commission (the…

Continue reading Gloria Baldock v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gloria Baldock v Repatriation Commission [2007] AATA 51
Case
[2007] AATA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Tribunal involved a claim by Gloria Baldock against the Repatriation Commission for a war-widow's pension. Baldock sought the pension on the basis that her late husband's death was caused by his operational service during the war, specifically due to conditions that she argued were war-caused. The Tribunal was required to determine if the conditions that led to the husband's death met the criteria for a war-related pension under the applicable legislative and policy framework.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the conditions that led to the husband's death were indeed war-caused, and if so, whether they met the criteria for a war-widow's pension under the applicable statement of principles. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence provided regarding the husband's service and the nature of the conditions that contributed to his death, specifically an anxiety disorder and a malignant neoplasm of the colorectum.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and concluded that the conditions leading to the husband's death were not attributable to his war service. The Tribunal found that the anxiety disorder and the malignant neoplasm were not connected to the husband's operational service in a manner that would qualify under the legislative criteria for a war-widow's pension. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decision to deny the pension application. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

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.