Harmer and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Harmer against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his claim for war-caused death benefits. The dispute centred on whether Mr Harmer's death from intracerebral haemorrhage, caused by hypertension, was war-caused under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth) (VE Act). The case was heard by Regina Perton, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Harmer's death arose out of, or was attributable to, his eligible war service, applying the standard of reasonable satisfaction. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the death met the criteria set out in the relevant Statements of Principles (SoPs) formulated by the Repatriation Medical Authority, which dictate the necessary connections between service and the disease. The Tribunal had to consider the SoP in force at the date of its decision, and if its requirements were not met, then consider SoPs current at the time the claim was lodged.

The Tribunal applied SoP No. 66 of 2015, which defines cerebrovascular accident to include intracerebral haemorrhage. This SoP lists hypertension within five years before clinical onset and drinking at least 300 grams of alcohol per week for at least one year before clinical onset as relevant risk factors. The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed Mr Harmer suffered from hypertension at the time of the clinical onset of cerebrovascular accident and had consumed excessive alcohol in the periods preceding both the hypertension and the cerebrovascular accident. However, the Tribunal found that the specific requirements of SoP No. 66 of 2015 were not met. The Tribunal also considered SoP No. 52 of 2006, which was in force at the time of the respondent's decision, and also found its requirements were not met. Despite the beneficial nature of the VE Act and the passage of time, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, noting that a lack of evidence cannot be treated as favourable to an applicant.