Hall and Repatriation Commission

[2007] AATA 1514

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1514

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N06/354

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		RUTH HALL

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member
Rear Admiral AR Horton AO, Member

Date6 July 2007

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Dr J D Campbell
  Member

CATCHWORDS       

Veterans’ Entitlements – application for war widow’s pension – kind of death – veteran’s death from cerebrovascular accident - relationship to service – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 – sections 8, 13, 120 and 120B

CASELAW

Repatriation Commission v Hancock (2003) 37 AAR 383

Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 July 2007  Dr J D Campbell, Member
  Rear Admiral A R Horton AO, Member

1.      

Mr Butler served in the Royal Australian Navy between 4 March 1948 and

14 June 1973.  Mr Butler had many periods of operational service, with the first in Korean waters during 1950, and the last in Vietnamese waters during 1969.  Mr Butler also completed a period of eligible defence service between 7 December 1972 and 14 June 1973.

2.      Mr Butler died on 17 December 2002.  The causes of death recorded on the death certificate were acute lumbar pneumonia (12 hours), aspiration, dysphagia (months), cerebral vascular disease (years), and cardiomyopathy, chronic renal failure, thyrotoxicosis (years).

3.      Mrs Hall is the widow of Mr Butler. They married on 20 March 1967.  Mrs Hall made a claim for a widow’s pension on 27 May 2005. The claim stated that Mr Butler’s death was caused or contributed to by his high consumption of alcohol, and that this drinking habit had been caused and/or contributed to by peer pressure from other Navy personnel.  The claim was denied by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission on 24 June 2005 and that decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 3 March 2006. 

Issues

4.      The relevant issues in this matter are:

(a)   What was the kind of death suffered by Mr Butler?

(b)Is there a hypothesis, pointed to by the material, linking Mr Butler’s kind of death with his service?

(c)Is there a Statement of Principles (“SoP”) applicable to the kind of death suffered?

(d)What, if any, factor contained within the relevant SoP is applicable?

(e)Does the claim succeed?

Decision

5.      For the reasons outlined later in this decision we conclude that:

(a)The kind of death suffered by Mr Butler was that of cerebrovascular disease.

(b)There is material pointing to a hypothesis linking Mr Butler’s kind of death to alcohol or, in the alternative, to alcohol causing or contributing to hypertension and/or cardiomyopathy. A third alternative is that either of the latter two conditions pre-existed the development of atrial fibrillation, which caused or contributed to the death from cerebrovascular disease.

(c)The applicable SoPs in this matter are those concerning cerebrovascular…