Lawrence and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 1135

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1135

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/1658

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		MARGARET LAWRENCE

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date16 November 2005

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

[Sgd] Dr J D Campbell   Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Widows Pension – kind of death suffered - Cause of death –whether kind of death contributed to operational service – whether reasonable hypothesis linking cause of death to operational service – no material supporting factors listed in relevant Statement of Principles – death not war caused – decision affirmed.

Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, sections 120, 120A

Statement of Principles Instrument No.28 2005

Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 771

REASONS FOR DECISION

16 November 2005 Dr J D Campbell, Member

1.      Mrs Margaret Lawrence is the widow of Mr Malcolm Lawrence. Mr Lawrence served in the Navy between 1951 and 1957, with a period of operational service between 27 October 1953 and 2 June 1954 in Korea. Mr Lawrence died on 20 January 2000. Mrs Lawrence lodged an application for a war widow’s pension on 2 February 2004 claiming that Mr Lawrence’s death was war-caused.

2.      Both parties have agreed that I am to consider this matter on the written material in evidence before me, with neither party seeking a hearing in this matter.

issues

3.      The relevant issues in this matter are:

(a)      What was the kind of death suffered by Mr Lawrence; and

(b)Did Mr Lawrence’s operational service contribute to the kind of death suffered, whereby his death could be considered to be war-caused?

decision

4.      For the reasons stated later in this decision, I find that the death of Mr Lawrence was not war-caused and Mrs Lawrence claim for a war widow’s pension is refused.

consideration and findings

5.      I have reviewed all the written material and I am satisfied that I am able to conclude the matter without the necessity of a hearing.

kind of death

6.      Mr Lawrence died on 20 January 2000 at the Nowra Community Hospital.  The death certificate lists the cause of death as acute renal failure (one week duration), an antecedent condition of extensive local and metastatic carcinoma of the prostate (present for six months) and an associated condition of extensive deep venous thrombosis to iliac vessels (present for one week). (T12).

7.      In her evidence, Mrs Lawrence makes reference to Mr Lawrence’s smoking and drinking habits and the change that occurred after his period of operational service on HMAS Sydney.  In July 1999, Mr Lawrence presented to Dr Beattie at Coffs Harbour with a swollen right leg and a prostatic specific antigen reading of 326.  On 13 July 1999, Dr Hanan, a Consultant Urologist, concluded that Mr Lawrence had a carcinoma of the prostate with bony metastases probable (Dr Antonio’s clinical notes). Treatment was commenced with hormonal therapy. 

8.      On 11 January 2000 a whole body bone study demonstrated widespread metastatic infiltration and partial obstruction of the left ureter (Clinical Notes Nowra Hospital).  On 12 January 2000 a venous duplex study of the left lower limb revealed extensive deep vein thrombus extending from the popliteal to femoral and extending into the pelvis, while involving much of the common iliac vein (Clinical Notes Nowra Hospital).  On 17 January 2000 Dr Brigham reported that Mr Lawrence was suffering from acute renal failure as a consequence of his metastatic prostatic disease and the extensive deep vein thrombotic condition.  Dr Brigham considered continuing palliative care appropriate, an opinion shared by Dr Cole following consultation on 19 January 2000.

9.      After consideration of this material, I am satisfied and so find that the kind of death suffered by Mr Lawrence involved a malignant carcinoma of the prostate with extensive metastasis.  Associated with this condition was an extensive deep venous thrombus which extended from the popliteal vein to the femoral and common iliac vein. Both conditions gave rise to the further condition of acute renal failure. I am satisfied that the deep vein thrombus and the acute renal failure arose as complications of the metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. I make such findings on the balance of probability.

relationship of kind of death to service

10.     I must now consider whether a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the malignant neoplasm of the prostate with circumstances of his relevant service in order to determine whether Mr Lawrence’s death was war caused.

11.     In addressing this issue I am obliged to consider Statement of Principles Instrument No 28 or 2005, concerning malignant neoplasm of the prostate.  .

12.     Paragraph five of the Statement of Principles Instrument No 28 of 2005 lists the factors that must as a minimum exist before I can find that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting death from malignant neoplasm of the prostate with the circumstances of Mr Lawrence’s relevant service.

13.     Following careful examination of all the material before me, I am unable to find material which would point to all the essential elements in any one of the factors. As such, a reasonable hypothesis has not been raised connecting death from a malignant neoplasm of the prostate with the circumstances of Mr Lawrence’s relevant service.  In such circumstances a finding that Mr Lawrence’s death was war caused cannot be substantiated, with the consequence that Mrs Lawrence’s claim for a pension must fail.

14.     I would be remiss in not noting that the clinical records of Mr Lawrence’s attending practitioner and the hospital clinical notes indicate that Mr Lawrence was suffering from a high cholesterol level for some years. Without further extensive assessment of Mr Lawrence’s dietary, weight and exercise regimes both prior to, during and post service, the matter can be taken no further.

15.     Finally, the previous Statement of Principles for Malignant Neoplasm of the Prostate was Instrument No 84 of 1999 as amended by Instrument N0 69 of 2002.  I acknowledge that Mrs Lawrence may have had accrued rights for the matter to be considered under this earlier Statement of Principles, as her application was lodged on 2 February 2004.  However a careful examination of the factors within the earlier Statement of Principles nominated takes the matter no further.

determination

16.     The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the 16 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of  

Signed:         .A. Krilis
  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  31 October 2005 (Hearing on the papers)

Date of Decision  16 November 2005
Representative for the Applicant               Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent  Adam Halonkin