Hassett and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 16

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 16

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q1996/1017

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		FLORENCE PEARL HASSETT

Applicant

And REPATRATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr E K Christie, Member

Date10 January 2005     

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.  This means that Mrs Hassett’s application is unsuccessful.

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

E K Christie
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERAN’S AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – war widows’ pension - whether war-caused death – cerebrovascular accident – anxiety disorder – post-traumatic stress disorder - hypertension - hypothesis - reasonable hypothesis - facts associated with hypothesis necessary to support the hypothesis or which are inconsistent with the hypothesis have not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 s 120

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 41 ALD 212
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 518
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 47 ALD 481
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Connors v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 783
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 1777 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Whetton (1991) 24 ALD 690
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 97 ALR 321
Polivitte Ltd v Commercial Union Insurance Company Pty Ltd [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 379

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 January 2005 Dr E K Christie, Member    

1.      This is an application by Florence Hassett to review a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) made on 17 September 1996, that refused her claim for a war widows’ pension on the basis that the death of her husband was not related to his service.

2.      In arriving at its decision, the VRB noted that in her application for review, “Mrs Hassett had not supplied any medical evidence to support her application”. (T5, Folio 63).

3.      At the hearing, Florence Hassett was represented by Mr A Harding of Counsel, instructed by Messer Gilshenan and Luton.  The Repatriation Commission was represented by Mr M Smith, a Departmental Advocate.

4. At the hearing, the Tribunal had in evidence before it, the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the “T” Documents, exhibit R1) and the various documents tendered by the parties.

The Facts

5.      The general facts were not in dispute and may be stated briefly.  The late Mr Hassett served in the Signals Corp and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.  He served in the Australian Army from 27 May 1940 to 13 August 1945.  The whole of this period constitutes eligible war service.  Because he served overseas for the entire period in Syria and New Guinea, the whole of his service constitutes operational service. 

6.      The late Mr Hassett suffered the following “accepted” and “rejected” disabilities:

(a) Service Related Disabilities

§Exhaustion State

§Functional Dyspepsia

§Loose Medial Meniscus Left Knee

§Periodontitis

(b) Non-Service Related Disabilities

§Refractive…