Mackay and Repatriation Commission
[2008] AATA 949
•23 October 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 949
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/0758
VETERANS APPEALS DIVISION ) Re HELEN MACKAY Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member
Dr MEC Thorpe, MemberDate23 October 2008
PlaceSydney
Decision The reviewable decision is set aside. In substitution therefor, we decide that Mr Mackay’s death was war-caused. Mrs Mackay is entitled to a war widow’s pension.
...................[sgd]...........................
Presiding Member
Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Claim for war widow’s pension – Operational service conceded - Kind of death Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD) – Whether veterans’ death war-caused – Statements of Principles (SoP) – Hypothesis raised that service caused Depressive Disorder which caused IHD which caused death – Whether factor in SoP for depressive disorder that clinical onset occurred within 5 years of experiencing stressor satisfied – Whether factor in SoP for IHD satisfied that Depressive Disorder clinically significant for at least five years before onset of IHD – Whether satisfied hypothesis disproved beyond reasonable doubt –Held both SoPs upheld hypothesis – Hypothesis not disproved beyond reasonable doubt - Reviewable decision set aside – Decision substituted veterans’ death war-caused
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 37
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, ss 120, 120A
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1995) 175 CLR 408
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144
Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethinic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Statement of Principles concerning Depressive Disoder (No 27 of 2008)
Statement of Principles concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease (No 89 of 2007)
REASONS FOR DECISION
23 October 2008 Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member
Dt MEC Thorpe, Member1. Mrs Helen Mackay is the widow of a World War II veteran, Mr Roderic Mackay, who died in May 1981. She seeks the review of the Repatriation Commission's refusal on 29 March 2006, of her claim for a war widow's pension, which was affirmed by the Veteran's Review Board.
THE ISSUES
2. The principal issue in this case is whether Mr Mackay's death from Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD) was caused by his operational service between 6 January 1941 and 22 February 1946. The hypothesis proposed connecting Mr Mackay's war service and his death was that he suffered a depressive disorder as a result of his war service which in turn caused his IHD. To answer the principal question, it is necessary to answer the following questions:
(a) Does the Statement of Principles (SoP) for Depressive Disorder uphold the hypothesis connecting Mr Mackay's depressive disorder with the circumstances of his service?
(b) If so, does the SoP for IHD uphold the hypothesis connecting Mr Mackay's depressive disorder with his death?
(c) If so, are we satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining that Mr Mackay's death was war-caused?
THE CASE FOR THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION
3. By the end of the hearing, we understood that the Repatriation Commission, for which Mr O'Reilly appeared, was contending two matters in relation to the SoP for Depressive Disorder were not satisfied. First, the material did not fit the SoP in relation to diagnosis of depressive disorder, and secondly, it did not fit the SoP factor connecting Mr Mackay's "depressive disorder" with the circumstances of his service. During the hearing, Mr O’Reilly conceded that the SoP for IHD upheld the hypothesis linking depressive disorder with IHD. However, in case we misunderstood Mr O'Reilly's position, we proceed to consider each of the issues set out above.
CONSIDERATION
4. It was not in dispute in these proceedings that the "kind of death" (s 120A(2)(a) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act)) suffered by Mr Mackay was IHD, and that the date of clinical onset was 1977 or 1978.
5. This case falls into the category of case considered in McKenna v Repatriation Commission and which is now reflected in clause 8 of both the relevant SoPs. That is, the hypothesis contains two sub-hypotheses which connect Mr Mackay's death from IHD with his service. The first sub-hypothesis is that Mr McKay's service caused his depressive condition. The second is that his depressive condition caused his death from IHD. There is an SoP for each of those diseases.
6. Therefore, the first and second issues in these proceedings arise at the third step of the analysis set out in Repatriation Commission v Deledio at page 97. That is, whether after consideration of the whole of the material before is, we are of the opinion that that material raises a reasonable hypothesis, that is, does the SoP uphold the hypothesis (s 120A(3) and s 120(3) of the Act)). There is no fact finding at this stage, apart from answering that question. As was said in Deledio at 97:
If an SoP is in force, the Tribunal must then form the opinion whether the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one. It will do so if the hypothesis fits, that is to say, is consistent with the "template" to be found in the SoP. The hypothesis raised before it must thus contain one or more of the factors which the Authority has determined to be the minimum which must exist, and be related to the person's service (as required by ss 196B(2)(d) and (e)). If the hypothesis does contain these factors, it could neither be said to be contrary to proved or known scientific facts, nor otherwise fanciful. If the hypothesis fails to fit within the template, it will be deemed not to be "reasonable" and the claim will fail.
Does the SoP for Depressive Disorder uphold the hypothesis connecting Mr Mackay's Depressive Disorder with his service?
7. The SoP for Depressive Disorder is Instrument No. 27 of 2008. The first question is whether there is material fitting the SoP in relation to a diagnosis of "Depressive disorder" which is defined in clause 3(b) of the SoP:
For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, "depressive disorder" means a group of psychiatric conditions which are manifested by a dysphoric mood. The mood disturbance is prominent and persistent. This definition is limited to major depressive episode, recurrent major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, depressive disorder not otherwise specified, substance-induced mood disorder with depressive features, or mood disorder due to a general medical condition with depressive features, or with major depressive-like episodes, where:
"depressive disorder not otherwise specified" means a disorder with depressive features that does not meet the criteria for major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, or adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The disorders covered by this diagnosis (derived from DSM-IV-TR) include:
A. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder;
B. Minor depressive disorder;
C. Recurrent brief depressive disorder;
D. Postpsychotic depressive disorder of schizophrenia;
E. A major depressive episode superimposed on delusional disorder, psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, or the active phase of schizophrenia, or
F. Situations in which the clinician has concluded that a depressive disorder is present but is unable to determine whether it is primary, due to a general medical condition, or substance induced.
8. Mr Colborne, counsel for Mrs Mackay, argued that the relevant category of depressive disorder in the SoP was "depressive disorder not otherwise specified". He relied on a few references in the documents provided to the Tribunal pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, and the evidence of Dr Dinnen, psychiatrist, Mrs Mackay, and Mr and Mrs Mackay's youngest son, Mr Ian Mackay, who was born in 1957. Mrs Mackay provided a written statement, gave oral evidence, and had given histories to Dr Dinnen and Dr Morris, a psychiatrist. She had also made statements in her claims in 1996 and 2006. Some of the details of her evidence differed. Following is a summary of the material relied on by Mr Colborne in support of his case. He acknowledged during his submissions that there is very little evidence in this case at all.
9. Mr Mackay was born on 3 October 1910 and apart from his war service, was employed from April 1927 to 22 August 1969 by MacDonald Hamilton & Co, as a travel consultant.
10. Mrs Mackay met her husband in 1946 and they married in 1949. At different times, she has described him as a very quiet, reserved, caring, fellow. She said that Mr Mackay's mother had said to her that the boys who went overseas "are not coming back the way they went". Mrs Mackay did not take much notice, but thought perhaps Mr Mackay's mother was trying to frighten her off.
11. Mr Mackay was having time off work as he was not well with depression, when McDonald Hamilton laid him off in September 1969, which made him more depressed. He did not feel so bad when he heard that others had also be put off. He was laid off at the end of 1969 and started to go down hill. Mrs Mackay told him to snap out of it and get a job, which he did, with the Herald newspaper.
12. Mrs Mackay was in the country with her younger two boys, when her oldest son who was at home with Mr Mackay, rang and said that his father was not very well. She returned home. Shortly after that, Mr Mackay tried to take his own life. He said, "Quick, get the boys out of the house, the Japs are coming". Mrs Mackay got the boys out of the house. When she went back inside, Mr Mackay was trying to kill himself. Mrs Mackay gave a few versions of what he was doing. She said that she asked him what it was about. He told that her that "We went there to stop them coming over here – but they are coming – what's the use". Mrs Mackay called the doctor who told her to get him to hospital, which she did with the help of a neighbour who drove them. Mr Mackay was admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital. He underwent electro-shock treatment. He spent some time at home rehabilitating before getting a job at the NRMA, where he was very happy. He worked there for some years and was a very happy man but not a well man.When asked by the Tribunal what she meant by that, she said that he always had this obsession with the Japanese, and when you hold back so much as he did and would not talk about the war, you end up "a physical mental" – she did not complete the sentence. In her written statement Mrs Mackay wrote that her husband was a "solemn man, he loved his family and his home. I think we helped him, at least I hope we did".
13. Mrs Mackay said that her husband would get upset when he heard radio reports that mentioned Japanese. He did not seem to get upset about his time in the Middle East, and talked about going on leave, for example in Jerusalem, but he never talked about the war in New Guinea. He had an obsession about the "Japs". Mr Mackay became agitated and depressed when a Japanese family moved in next door. He thought his fighting the Japanese in New Guinea was pointless when they could buy property and live next door. He never spoke to them and did not like his wife or children speaking to them.
14. Mr Mackay never marched on ANZAC Day, although he sometimes watched it on television with Mrs Mackay, and they went to the dawn service in town a couple of times at her suggestion. He told his wife that he never marched in Sydney because his unit was a Melbourne unit and none of his fellow veterans would be in the Sydney march. He did speak about his war service with his daughter-in-law's father, an outgoing man, but only when they were alone.
15. She once asked him why he did not join the RSL club. Mr Mackay said that “you only join that if you want to drink - I want to be with my family".
16. Mrs Mackay said that when he got upset, Mr Mackay would sulk. She first noticed that after they had their first child in 1951. She would take no notice and make up to him, which seemed to work. On one occasion they did not speak for two days. He asked her never to ignore him, and “next time please knock it out of me". She said that is what she did.
17. Mrs Mackay said that he was a very good father and loved his family. He had no friends outside the family and lived for his family. She told Dr Dinnen that Mr Mackay was a very good sleeper, that there were very happy times together and that he had no symptoms before his breakdown.
18. Mr Ian Mackay said that his father was not very expressive. He recalled that his father was in Royal North Shore Hospital for 6 or 7 weeks in 1969 and had electroshock treatment when he had a breakdown. He thought that his two older brothers probably found it very difficult to relate to their father. Mr Ian Mackay thought his father was a little more open after his breakdown. He got a job at the NRMA after his breakdown through a friend at church. Life returned to normal, with the routine based around the family. Mr Ian Mackay was aware of no further treatment after his father left Royal North Shore Hospital. He was aware that his father had a heart condition and took a number of tablets. Mr Mackay would go to the beach or church with the family and socialise with family friends but he did not go to pubs or socialise by himself or have his own friends. Mr Ian Mackay had seen photos of his father skiing before the War and had been told that he belonged to the Bondi Surf Club.
19. Mr Mackay lodged a claim with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) for medical treatment and for pension in 1978, following a cardiac arrest in 1977. The notes made by the medical officer for the DVA who examined Mr Mackay in 1978 included that Mr Mackay was taking valium and mogadon, and referred to 'CNS - depression "off & on"'. The notes also stated that Mr Mackay retired in June 1978. A sick leave record from his employment with MacDonald Hamilton and Company showed that he was off work for almost 14 weeks following coronary thrombosis in 1965.
20. Dr Dinnen and Dr Morris provided reports and gave oral evidence concurrently.
21. Dr Morris saw Mrs Mackay and Mr Ian Mackay. In his opinion, there were no symptoms of mental illness on the material, apart from the major depressive episode in 1969.. Dr Morris noted the lack of access to psychiatric records from the time of Mr Mackay’s admission to the Royal North Shore Hospital. He did not find enough evidence to form the opinion that Mr Mackay had depressive disorder of any sort within five years of his service in New Guinea. Dr Morris could not confirm, based on the material provided to him, that Mr Mackay suffered any psychiatric disorder.
22. Dr Morris considered that Mr Mackay's dislike of the Japanese was not an uncommon one at the time. He suffered no nightmares. His wife slept in the same bed. He took the children to the beach, and travelled a lot with his career. Dr Morris did not think that the evidence established that Mr Mackay had suffered a depressive condition, apart from the 1969 major depressive episode at a time when he was losing his job, and he was unemployed for a period. In Dr Morris's opinion, Mr Mackay's losing his job could have precipitated the depressive episode. He had treatment in 1969 and the delusional belief about the Japanese coming, went away. Dr Morris referred to a study of Vietnam veterans showing that 20% developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), that is, the vast majority did not.
23. Dr Dinnen based his evidence on a half hour telephone conversation with Mrs Mackay by telephone, her written statement, and other material which is also before the Tribunal. In his written report, he expressed the opinion that:
In the light of current psychiatric knowledge, I think it is highly probable that Mr Mackay suffered from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his combat experience in New Guinea. … The condition is commonly associated with depressive illness, and I therefore believe that the episode of severe psychotic depression (in 1969) was part of that post traumatic stress disorder. I believe it is highly likely that the chronic post traumatic stress disorder was associated throughout the years following his service in New guinea with a depressive disorder, which was part of and comorbid with the PTSD.
24. In response to the the question whether Mr Mackay suffered from a clinically significant depressive disorder, Dr Dinnen wrote in his report:
…he certainly had a severe depressive illness leading to hospitalization in 1968. This was a major depressive episode. I believe this occurred in the context of a chronic depressive disorder associated with chronic post traumatic stress disorder… There is no doubt that the episode of illness requiring hospitalization was that of a major psychotic depressive illness. I believe it is more likely than not that he continued to suffer from less severe forms of depressive illness from the the time he served in New Guinea until his death
25. During his oral evidence, Dr Dinnan expressed his view in terms that Mr Mackay had a major psychotic depressive illness in 1969 and it is more likely than not that he continued to suffer from less severe forms of depressive illness from the time he served in New Guineas until his death. Dr Dinnan emphasised that over the last 20 or 30 years there has been an increasing awareness of looking at environmental factors, and family history in relation to depression. He said that the loss of a job was not a stressor, rather it occurred on top of vulnerability. He said that there as a strong association of PTSD and depressive illness. He concluded, on the basis of the history he had taken from Mrs Mackay, that Mr Mackay suffered ongoing mild depressive illness before and after the 1969 depressive episode.
26. Dr Dinnen said that there were few clues to go on in this case. He referred to what he described as Mr Mackay's social withdrawal, which he said was not a personality trait, and Mr Mackay's not wanting anything to do with the RSL or talk about his war service, as avoidance behaviour. Dr Dinnen said that one explanation for his difficulty with his children and withdrawal into his family was dysphoric mood which was prominent and persistent throughout his life. Dr Dinnen regarded Mr Mackay's dislike or preoccupation with Japanese as hyper-vigilance, a symptom in DSM-IV for PTSD. He also referred to Mrs Mackay's evidence that Mr Mackay was nervous when their first son was born, as reflecting that Mr Mackay had an anxiety problem at that time. Further, when Mr Mackay had seen by a Veterans’ Affairs officer in 1978, Mr Mackay was taking valium and mogadon, which Dr Dinnen said was not inconsistent with his suffering a depressive disorder. He described the notes made in 1978 of those medications, and of "depression on and off", as "hard evidence" that Mr Mackay was suffering depression in 1978.
27. We understood Dr Dinnen to say that, in accordance with the state of psychiatry in 1978, Mr Mackay would have been diagnosed as having an anxiety state.
28. Dr Dinnen criticised the study Dr Morris referred to, saying that the study had been carried out by a clinical psychologist and not a psychiatrist. He referred to another study which appeared in a Czech article which stated that 50% had depression 10 years after the war in Croatia.
29. In Dr Dinnen's opinion, there was evidence that Mr Mackay had been outgoing before the war, which was a reference to his belonging to the Bondi life saving club. None of the sons related well to their father. Mr Ian Mackay had related best, but had said that there was always a barrier. The evidence of the sulks was Mr Mackay's withdrawing into himself. He thought the sulks occurred when Mr Mackay became agitated about the Japanese. This material he described as "soft evidence".
30. During cross-examination, Dr Dinnen said that he had been asked to come up with a reasonable argument as to a psychiatric diagnosis. He said that to the extent that he did not have evidence, what he said was speculation, but he was only speculating about information that he had been given, not about information he had not been given.
31. Dr Dinnen's evidence was speculative, as previously described. However, we find that the material before us, including the evidence of Dr Dinnen, fits the SoP for diagnosis of "depressive disorder", being "depressive disorder not otherwise specified". In coming to that conclusion we take into account, the High Court's statement in Bushell v Repatriation Commission at page 415:
However, a hypothesis cannot be reasonable if it is "contrary to proved scientific facts or to the known phenomena of nature". Nor can it be reasonable if it is "obviously fanciful, impossible, incredible or not tenable or too remote to too tenuous".
But leaving aside cases of those kinds, the case must be rare where it can be said that a hypothesis, based on the raised facts, is unreasonable when it is put forward by a medical practitioner who is eminent in the relevant field of knowledge. Conflict with other medical opinions is not sufficient to reject a hypothesis as unreasonable. As we have earlier pointed out, it is not the function of s 120(3) to require the Commission to choose between competing hypotheses or to determine whether one medical or scientific opinion is to be preferred to another. This does not mean, however, that in performing its functions under s 120(3) the Commission cannot have regard to the medical or scientific material which is opposed to the material which supports the veteran's claim. Indeed, the Commission is bound to have regard to the opposing material for the purpose of examining the validity of the reasoning which supports the claim that there is a connexion between the incapacity or death and the service of a veteran. But it is vital that the Commission keep in mind that that hypothesis may still be reasonable although it is unproved and opposed to the weight of informed opinion.
32. We reject Mr O'Reilly's submission that the "speculation" undertaken by Dr Dinnen means that this aspect of the hypothesis is not pointed to or supported by the material before us, but is merely left open as a possibility (Repatriation Commission v Bey; East v Repatriation Commission).
Factors connecting service with Depressive Disorder
33. The next question is whether the material fits the factor in cl 6 of the SoP for Depressive Disorder that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting depressive disorder with the circumstances of service. The factors that arose in this case were:
(a) for major depressive episode, recurrent major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder and depressive disorder not otherwise specified only,
…
(ii) experiencing a category 1A stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder;
(iii) experiencing a category 1B stressor within the five years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder
. …
34. Clause 9 of the SoP states a category 1A stressor means one or more of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) experiencing a life-threatening event;
(b) being subject to a serious physical attack or assault including rape and sexual molestation; or
(c) being threatened with a weapon, being held captive, being kidnapped, or being tortured.
35. The same clause defines a Category 1B stressor to mean one or more of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) being an eyewitness to a person being killed or critically injured;
(b) viewing corpses or critically injured casualties as an eyewitness;
(c) being an eyewitness to atrocities inflicted on another person or persons;
(d) killing or maiming a person; or
(e) being an eyewitness to or participating in, the clearance of critically injured casualties.
36. Putting aside the question of time of clinical onset, we did not understand Mr O'Reilly to argue that the material before us did not fit the SoP in relation to Mr Mackay's having experienced category 1A and 1B stressors. In any event, we find that the evidence of the historian about the Wewak campaign and Mr Mackay's service during that campaign does fit that aspect of factor 6(a) of the SoP for IHD.
37. In summary, the historian prepared a report at the joint request of both parties. The report shows that Mr Mackay served in Palestine and Syria as a signaller with the Signals 6th Australian Division. On the way back to Australia, he served in Ceylon. His part of that unit became attached to 2/2 Field Regiment Signal Section after he returned to Australia on 7 August 1942. On 3 September 1943 he formally became a member of that unit. From January 1945 until the Japanese surrender in mid-August 1945, the 2/2 Field Regiment was involved in operations against enemy forces in the Wewak campaign, apart from a couple of brief rest periods in April and June. The historian described how members of the unit accompanied infantrymen on patrols as Observation Post (OP) parties. The purpose of these parties was to direct the fire of the unit's artillery pieces onto enemy positions. The historian set out the death and injuries suffered by members of the unit during that period, and referred to incidents where an RAAF aircraft and a US aircraft accidentally attacked the unit's position, one soldier being seriously wounded in the RAAF attack. The historian also stated that the camps occupied by the Signal Section were particularly in danger from Japanese patrols in June and July 1945. While the war diaries and unit histories of the 2/2 Field Regiment and its Signal Section are not sufficiently detailed to enable precise identification of the patrols and actions in which Mr Mackay took part, the historian concluded that:
As a wireless operator in the Signal Section, Mr Mackay would certainly have taken part in these patrols and been exposed to the danger of enemy action. Even when he was not out on patrol, he was still exposed to threats from Japanese infiltrators and snipers who were prowling around the perimeters of the various camps that his unit occupies. Thus, in contrast to Mr Mackay's earlier periods of service in the Middle East and Australia, his seven-month period of service in the Wewak campaign was likely to have been stressful because of the dangers he faced from enemy action.
38. The Japanese surrendered on 15 August 1945. Mr Mackay embarked at Wewak for Australia on 30 January 1946 and was discharged on 22 February 1946.
39. The next question is whether the material fits the SoP requirement that the clinical onset of the depressive disorder occurred within five years of Mr Mackay's experiencing a category 1A or 1B stressor, that is by the end of August 1950. Dr Dinnen expressed the view that it was likely that Mr Mackay had suffered depression from the time of his service. Mr O'Reilly argued that there was no material suggesting that Mr Mackay suffered depression before 1951 and that the material pointed away from that. He relied on Dr Morris's evidence. Again, taking into account the High Court's statement in Bushell set out above, and the authorities of Bey and East as discussed above, we consider that Dr Dinnen's evidence is material which fits or is consistent with the SoP requirement of clinical onset within five years of suffering a relevant stressor.
Does the SoP for IHD uphold the hypothesis connecting Mr Mackay's death with his service?
40. The second sub-hypothesis must fit the SoP for IHD (Instrument No. 89 of 2007) (see McKenna). The factor relied upon by Mr Colborne to connect Mr Mackay's death with his service is 6(o):
having clinically significant depressive disorder for at least five years, before the clinical onset of ischaemic heart disease.
41. Clause 9 of the SoP for IHD states:
"clinically significant" means sufficient to warrant ongoing management, which may involve regular visits (for example, at least monthly), to a psychiatrist, counsellor or general practitioner.
42. Mr O'Reilly conceded during the hearing that the raised facts fitted this factor. We are not bound by that concession. We have to make the correct or preferable decision: Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethinic Affairs at 78. In this case we find that the raised sub-hypothesis does fit the SoP for IHD. There are the clinical notes in 1978 referred to above, and Dr Dinnen's statement in his report that factor 6(o) was satisfied. He was not cross-examined to suggest that he had not understood the definition of "clinically significant" in factor 6(o) of the SoP for IHD. Dr Morris did not address this factor of the SoP.
Are we satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining that Mr Mackay's death was war-caused?
43. Mr O'Reilly did not argue that if we found the sub-hypotheses fitted both the relevant SoPs, that we would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining that Mr Mackay's death was war-caused. In any event, we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Mackay’s death was not war-caused.
DECISION
44. For the foregoing reasons, the reviewable decision is set aside. In substitution therefor, we decide that Mr Mackay’s death was war-caused. Mrs Mackay is entitled to a war widow’s pension.
I certify that the 44 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member and Dr MEC Thorpe, Member.
Signed: ………[sgd]…..….
Steven Mulipola, Associate
Date of hearing: 30 May 2008
Date of decision: 23 October 2008
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Colborne
Solicitors for the Applicant: Dibbs Abbott Stillman
Representative for the Respondent: Advocacy Section, Department of Veterans’ Affairs
0
8
0