Joan Donovan v Repatriation Commission

Case [2011] AATA 510


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 510

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2010/2748

VETERANS'        APPEALS       DIVISION )
Re JOAN DONOVAN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Miss E A Shanahan, Member

Date25 July 2011

PlaceMelbourne

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes its decision that the Applicant qualifies for the widow’s pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

..............................................

Member

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – claim for widow’s pension – kind of death – acute pancreatitis – application of the Statement of Principles – alcohol consumption – eligible war service – reasonable satisfaction – decision set aside

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 7, s 8, s 13, s 120, s 120A, s 120B

Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 365

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall (2005) 88 ALD 1

Re Kathleen Robertson and Repatriation Commission [1998] AATA 127

Repatriation Commission v Codd (2007) 95 ALD 619

Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690

Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 47 FLR 57

Winch v Repatriation Commission [1998] FCA 1110

Winch v Repatriation Commission (1999) 55 ALD 351

Statement of Principles Instrument No 46 of 1997 concerning acute pancreatitis as amended by No 75 of 1998 and No 42 of 2003

Statement of Principles Instrument No 86 of 2011 concerning acute pancreatitis

REASONS FOR DECISION

25 July 2011 Miss E A Shanahan, Member       

1.Mrs Donovan is the widow of Graeme Joseph Donovan (the Veteran) who died on 5 February 1993.  The Veteran had eligible defence service from 7 December 1972 until 30 August 1974.  Mrs Donovan lodged a claim for the widow’s pension on 23 June 2009.  The claim was rejected on 17 August 2009 by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission (the Commission).  The Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) affirmed the delegate’s decision on 7 June 2010.  Mrs Donovan applied to this Tribunal for a review of the decision on 8 July 2010.

2.Mrs Donovan was represented by Mr John Horan, an advocate of the Returned and Services League. Mr Ken Rudge appeared for the Commission.  Mrs Donovan gave evidence before the Tribunal.  The parties tendered the following documents:

(a)for the Applicant:

·a photograph of a group of men including the late Veteran – Exhibit A1;

·a photograph of Lieutenant Ralph McMillan – Exhibit A2;

·the envelope containing a letter from Mrs McMillan, posted in 2010 – Exhibit A3(a);

·the letter from Mrs McMillan – Exhibit A3(b);

·the report of Mr PJ Harrington dated 30 December 2010 – Exhibit A4; and

(b)for the Respondent:

·documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T-documents) – Exhibit R1;

·the report of Professor John Cade dated 7 September 2010 – Exhibit R2;

·a report from Writeway Research Service dated 29 September 2010 – Exhibit R3;

·the transcript of the VRB hearing of 7 June 2010 – Exhibit R4;

·the Veteran’s Service Medical Documents (49 pages) – Exhibit R5; and

·supplementary T-documents numbered 54a to…

Continue reading Joan Donovan v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Joan Donovan v Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 510
Case
[2011] AATA 510
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Donovan v Repatriation Commission involves Joan Donovan, who applied for a widow's pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 following the death of her husband, a former member of the Australian Defence Force. The Repatriation Commission initially declined her application on the basis that her husband's death was not attributable to his service, leading to a dispute over whether the death was indeed service-related. The case was brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was tasked with reviewing the Commission's decision.

The central legal issues the Tribunal needed to address were whether the death of the veteran was attributable to his service and, if so, whether this entitled the Applicant to a widow's pension under the Act. This required a thorough examination of the medical evidence and circumstances surrounding the veteran's death. The Tribunal had to determine if the veteran's service had contributed to his death and if the death was a result of a condition that arose from the service.

The Tribunal found that the veteran's service had indeed contributed to his death and that the condition leading to his death was related to his service. The evidence showed a clear link between the veteran's service and the disease that ultimately caused his death. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to the widow's pension. The Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision and substituted its own decision, finding that the Applicant qualified for the pension.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes its decision that the Applicant qualifies for the widow’s pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.

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.