Mitchell and Repatriation Commission

[2003] AATA 1329

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1329

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No D2002/39

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		WILLIAM FREDERICK MITCHELL

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller

Date12 December 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision to reject a claim by William Frederick Mitchell for medical treatment and pension for conditions of hyperlipidemia and hyperuricemia.

...............SIGNED.........................

D.W. MULLER

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS AFFAIRS – hyperlipidemia and hyperuricemia not war-caused

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Don Muller       

1.      William Frederick Mitchell, the Applicant, claims that he contracted hepatitis A while serving with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in Singapore in 1955.  He further claims that the hepatitis A may have caused permanent liver damage which could have upset the equilibrium of his metabolism and led to hyperlipidemia (raised triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol) and hyperuricemia (kidney stones).

2.      Mr. Mitchell’s service records show that he served in the RAAF from 1951 to 1958, including “operational service” in Malaya and Singapore from 3 January 1955 to 22 December 1955.

3.      Mr. Mitchell developed the symptoms of hepatitis A while he was on leave in Brisbane in mid January 1956.  He was put on sick leave and told to rest.  By April 1956 he had made a full recovery.

4.      Mr. Mitchell claims that the incubation period for hepatitis A is about three months and that therefore he contracted the infection in late 1955.

5.      There is a Statement of Principles (SoP) for hepatitis A, number 41 of 1994.  Mr. Mitchell relies on factor 1(a) which provides:

“…. Hepatitis A can be related to operational service rendered by veterans, …..., that the factors that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting hepatitis A with the circumstances of that service,

(a)living in conditions of overcrowding or poor hygiene within 60 days before contracting hepatitis A;”

6.      Mr. Mitchell gave evidence by way of written statement and oral evidence of certain living conditions at the RAAF base at Singapore which suggest that he could have contracted hepatitis A at that base.  The Tribunal could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did not.

7.      Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the hepatitis A infection contracted by Mr. Mitchell in 1955 was war-caused.

8.      Mr. Mitchell’s medical records also show that after he made a complete recovery from hepatitis A in April 1956, he was never bothered by it again.

9.      Mr. Mitchell has had four tests done to check his liver function, between 4 March 1998 and 29 July 2002.  They were all completely normal.

10.     The Tribunal had the assistance of a statement by Dr. Doug Duthie, dated 30 April 2003, which made the following points about various tests done on Mr. Mitchell.

·     A fasting lipid profile done on 16 November 1995 showed Type IV Hyperlipidemia.  Mr. Mitchell was commenced on medication.  His last lipid profile, 29 July 2002, showed more normal levels. This is mostly genetically based and has no direct relationship to liver disease.

·     Blood tests done on 15 April 1997 show a past infection of hepatitis A but a current immunity.

·     There is no evidence of chronic hepatitis.

·     There is no active liver disease.

·     An ultrasound on 6 July 2001 showed some fatty change in the liver.  This is a common finding.

11.     Mr. Mitchell gave evidence that he has had some recent problems with kidney stones but since taking preventative medication he has had no problems.

12.     There is no SoP for either hyperlipidemia and hyperuricemia.

13.     The hypothesis proposed by Mr. Mitchell to link his hyperlipidemia and hyperuricemia to his RAAF service via hepatitis and liver damage is not reasonable because:

(a)He has not suffered from hepatitis A since April 1956.  He is in fact immune from it.

(b)He has no liver damage.

(c)There has been no theory put forward by any person of repute in the area (or any other medical person for that matter) that liver damage leads to hyperlipidemia or hyperuricemia.

(d)He does not currently suffer from hyperlipidemia nor hyperuricemia.

14.     The decision to reject the claim made by Mr. Mitchell is affirmed.

I certify that the 14 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Don Muller

Signed:         .......................................................................................
           C. O’Donovan, Associate

Date/s of Hearing  5 December 2003 
Date of Decision  12 December 2003
Applicant   Mr. Mitchell, himself
Respondent   Mr. G. Doube, departmental advocate