Lonergan and Repatriation Commission

[2007] AATA 1924

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 2007 AATA 1924

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No   Q200600388

VETERANS’ APPEALS   DIVISION		)
Re		MURIEL LONERGAN

Applicant

And   REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

  Dr EK Christie, Member

  Dr JB Morley, Member

Date               5 November 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.  The possibility of an Act of Grace  payment is raised in the factual circumstances.

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

DR EK CHRISTIE 

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – war widow’s pension – cerebrovascular accident – alcohol threshold – assumed fact reasonably open to be inferred from, pointed to, raised by and so permitted by the material – reasonable hypothesis raised by assumed or raised fact – satisfaction of Statement of Principles – war-caused death – Act of Grace Payment
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 119, 120(1), 120(3)
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 41 ALD 212
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 518
Horne v Repatriation Commission (1996) 24 AAR 127
Critch v Repatriation Commission (1996) 43 ALD 574
Stares v Repatriation Commission (1996) 66 FCR 594
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 47 ALD 481
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Connors v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 783
Repatriation Commission v Whetton (1991) 24 ALD 690
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564
Mason v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1409
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries (1939) All ER 722

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 November 2007 Dr EK Christie, Member

1.       This is an application by Muriel Lonergan to review a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) made on 25 May 2006.  The VRB decided that the death of her late husband, Thomas Lonergan, was not war-caused.

2.      In reaching its decision, the VRB concluded, on the evidence before it, that:

“17. …. The veteran commenced drinking in Japan.  This raises a temporal connection between service and alcohol consumption.  However there must also be a causal connection between alcohol to alleviate the stress of working as a military policeman.  This was not a popular role.  The applicant stated that she met the veteran in 1955 when he was consuming more than 6 pots of beer per day.  He consumed as this rate throughout his life and about once a month he would binge drink…

18. There is no evidence that the veteran suffered from a service related psychiatric condition or any painful physical condition which he may have self medicated with alcohol. In theses circumstances the Board could not find a causal connection between service and alcohol consumption. It follows that the Board was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of section 120(10) of the Act that there was no sufficient ground for finding that the veteran’s hypertension or cerebrovascular accident leading to his death was war caused.”

3.      At the hearing, Muriel Lonergan was represented by Mr Nathan Jarro…