Morgan and Repatriation Commission
[2000] AATA 458
•9 June 2000
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 458
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N1999/353
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re DOUGLAS STEWART MORGAN
Applicant
And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RespondentDECISION
Tribunal The Hon Mr R N J Purvis, QC, Deputy President
Date9 June 2000
PlaceSydney
Decision 1. The decision of the delegate of the Repatriation Commission dated 24 May 1997 which determined that the disabilities of bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet, bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes were not war-caused pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 is set aside. 2. The Tribunal substitutes for the decision set aside, a decision that the disabilities of bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet, bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes are war-caused pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. 3. Pension be granted to the Applicant at 100% of the General Rate with effect from and including 3 July 1996.
(Sgd) R N J Purvis
..............................................
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
Veterans' Affairs – disability pension – general rate – hallux valgus – osteoarthrosis – bilateral hammer toes – operational service – war-caused conditions – reasonable hypothesis – Statement of Principles.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Hon Mr R N J Purvis, QC, Deputy President
THE APPLICATION:
This is an application by Douglas Stewart Morgan ("the Applicant") whereby he seeks review of a decision made by the Veterans' Review Board on 15 February 1999.
The Applicant made a claim seeking disability pension entitlement referable to his "feet" described by a medical practitioner as "degenerative osteoarthritis of metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints and gross deformity" by application lodged on 3 October 1996. On 3 January 1997 a delegate of the Respondent decided to refuse the claim made by the Applicant. With reference to the various conditions then experienced by the Applicant the delegate dealt with such conditions under the medical names of osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints and osteoarthrosis right metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints.
With reference to the left metatarsal, the delegate stated (T2/5-6):
"In your claim you have contended that osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints was caused by route marching.
This is not a causal or aggravating factor identified in the Statement of Principles as, in the opinion of the RMA, it is not supported by sound medical-scientific evidence. As such, I am unable to relate osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints to service through this factor. …
Osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints can only be aggravated by factors that are due to service if the symptoms or signs of osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints developed before the end of service covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act. In this case, as osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints developed after service covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act, aggravation of osteoarthrosis left metatarsal – phalangeal and interphalangeal joints cannot be considered. Only causation of … [the condition] by service can be considered.
The circumstances of this case do not satisfy the Statement of Principles issued by the RMA in respect of … [the condition]. As a result I find that all the evidence does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting … [the condition] and operational service. I am therefore unable to accept it as war service."
A similar finding was made with reference to the right metatarsal.
On 24 May 1997, further to a request having been made by the Applicant for review of the delegate's decision, a decision on review was made. This latter decision then describing the conditions experienced by the Applicant as "bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet, bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes" (T29/8) confirmed the delegates decision and refused the Applicant's claim. So far as now relevant the review decision noted that a Medical Officer of the Department of Veterans' Affairs had examined the various medical reports made available to that date and advised that "the appropriate diagnoses" of the Applicant's "foot problems" was as above now described and further (T18/65):
"In your original claim you contended that you (sic) foot problems were due to 'route marching'.
In a subsequent letter you attributed your back and walking problems to foot problems you have experienced since your time with the Mechanised Cavalry. You also made reference to three other incidents which have effected your back and walking. These were landing hard on your back after hitting the parachute release button to (sic) soon, a crash landing on a makeshift airstrip and being forced to walk 14 miles."
The review then continued by noting that RAAF medical records did not reveal any evidence of any problems with the Applicant's feet or medical treatment of any foot problems during service. With reference to the conditions as then described the Review Officer, in refusing the claim, stated that (T18/66):
"The medical evidence suggests that the osteoarthrosis is consistent with degenerative changes due to ageing.
Bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet can only be aggravated by factors that are due to service if the symptoms or signs of osteoarthrosis developed before the end of service covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act."
Similar conclusions were reached as to the bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes. The conditions were said to be unrelated to the operational service of the Applicant.
The Applicant then sought review by the Veterans' Review Board and on 15 February 1999 the Board affirmed the decision of 24 May 1997. In its reasons for decision, after considering the case made by the Applicant and the standard of proof required and with reference to the condition then experienced by the Applicant, the Board stated that (T23/84):
"… there is no evidence that he [the Applicant] meets the definition set out above [in the Statement of Principles].
…
… none of the minimum factors set out in the Statement of Principles is raised by the evidence in this case."
The Board continued by saying with reference to the bilateral hammer toe deformity that there was no evidence that the Applicant suffered from the condition on enlistment or at discharge "although it seems likely some foot deformity has been present since an early age". The Board was of the view the bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes was congenital but that there was "no evidence in his service records that he was every treated for worsening of the condition due to wearing service footwear" and that "none of the minimum factors set out in the Statement of Principles is raised by the evidence in this case".
It is from the latter decision that the Applicant has now sought review by the Tribunal.
THE HEARING:At the hearing of this application the Applicant appeared on his own behalf, the Respondent being represented by Mr Wallis, a departmental advocate.
There was introduced into evidence the documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, such documents being marked T1 – T27. In addition material was tendered by each of the parties and marked as exhibits. The latter comprised the following:
Exhibit A B C D E F G H J K 1 2 3 4 Description Document from Applicant headed "For Hearing, Level 5; 12th May 2000, 10 am" Medical report of Dr Mark R Podgorski dated 22 February 2000 Medical report of Dr Geoffrey K Herkes dated 6 July 1999 Medical report of Dr Les Grujic dated 8 September 1997 Medical report of Dr Geoffrey K Herkes dated 20 October 1997 Medical notes of Dr Diana Staniforth of 6 January 1997 and 22 January 1997 Medical notes of Medical notes of Dr Eric Rouesnel Medical notes of Dr Eric Rouesnel Letter from Respondent to Dr W Lennon dated 20 September 1999; and letter from Respondent to Applicant dated 13 September 1999 Letter from Department of Veterans' Affairs to Applicant dated 21 February 1997 Medical report of Professor Philip N Sambrook dated 2 December 1999 Supplementary Report of Professor Philip N Sambrook dated 25 January 2000 File Note dated 15 May 2000 Document signed by the advocate for the Respondent dated 15 May 2000 entitled "Request for a Decision".
At the conclusion of proceedings on the first day of the hearing the Respondent indicated, through its advocate, that in the light of the then evidence it would not oppose and indeed would jointly with the Applicant, if the Applicant so agreed, request the Tribunal to grant the relief sought by the Applicant. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 16 May 2000 in order that a "Request for a Decision" pursuant to section 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 might be drawn up and then signed by the parties. The document was prepared (Exhibit 4) but the Applicant declined to make himself available to sign it. Indeed he indicated to an officer of the Respondent that he "would not be signing anything" (Exhibit 3).
On the matter coming on for the resumed hearing on 16 May 2000, the Tribunal was informed by the Respondent's advocate of the above, the advocate then saying that he had no further material to place before the Tribunal. A decision in accord with Exhibit 4, "Request for a Decision", was sought.
The Tribunal reserved its decision.
THE ISSUES:As has been earlier indicated in these reasons, the Applicant lodged a claim for disability pension and medical treatment on 3 October 1996 claiming entitlement on account of the there described disabilities being war-caused. The decision of the delegate of 3 January 1997 refused the claim for entitlement. The review under date 24 May 1997 in effect revoked the earlier decision of the Commission, substituting the diagnoses of bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet, bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes in lieu of the conditions as earlier described. The disabilities, as newly described, were however found to be not war-caused. On appeal to the Veterans' Review Board the decision of 24 May 1997 was affirmed.
The issues now arising for determination may be shortly stated as follows:
(1)does the Applicant satisfy the relevant Statement of Principles concerning hallux valgus being Instrument No 300 of 1995 on the ground that he has demonstrated that there was material aggravation of the congenital hallux valgus arising from the circumstances of his operational service;
(2)has the Applicant satisfied a factor under paragraph 5 of the Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthrosis (being Instrument No 71 of 1995 amended by No 336 of 1995 and later amended by No 352 of 1995) showing the condition to be aggravated by the circumstances of the Applicant's operational service; and
(3)in the event of there being an acceptance of the disability of bilateral hallux valgus as a war-caused disability, whether there is evidence establishing a causal connection between the disability of bilateral hammer toes to service in the circumstances of the Applicant's service.
RELEVANT LAW AND STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES:
The provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 more particularly relevant to this application are sections 120(1), 120(3), 120(4) and section 120A.
The Tribunal is required to find that the relevant conditions of the Applicant were war-caused unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that finding. The Tribunal is to be so satisfied if it is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis to connect these conditions with the circumstances of the particular service rendered. The Tribunal is further required to assess the reasonableness of hypotheses in accordance with the Statements of Principles issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority.
The latter mentioned Authority is an independent medical body that issues Statements of Principles based on sound medical scientific evidence. The Statements of Principles set out the factors relating to service, at least one of which must exist in order to establish a causal connection between particular diseases, injuries or death and service.
The Statements of Principles as here relevant are those that are contained in Instrument No 300 of 1995 as it concerns congenital hallux valgus, Instrument No 71 of 1995 as it concerns osteoarthrosis and Instrument No 352 of 1995 amending the earlier Statement of Principles concerning osteoarthrosis.
War Service:The Applicant served in the Australian Army Mechanised Cavalry from 30 May 1941 to 12 September 1941 and the Royal Australian Air Force (including therein the Royal Air Force) from 13 September 1941 to 26 March 1947. The service of the Applicant constitutes eligible war service within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Applicant served outside Australia and his service, accordingly, constitutes operational service.
The activities of the Applicant as here relevant during such war service are variously described. In a statement made by him on 20 January 1997 (T10) he states:
"I applied for the RAAF before I was 18 – so; while waiting to be called up I spent the time in Mechanised Cavalry – mostly in sandshoes because I couldn't wear Army boots AND have had trouble with my feet ever since (leading to back and WALKING problems which are still being investigated).
Major incidents in RAF Bomber Command were (1) bailing out over England in 10/10ths cloud and hitting the parachute release button too soon landing hard on my back (2) crash-landing on a makeshift airstrip; the rear gunner being killed when the tailwheel ran over his throat (3) I could also throw in having to walk back 14 miles to Maison Blanche aerodrome when I missed the last truck.
…"
In a further statement made on 6 June 1997 (T19) the Applicant stated:
"…
1 I never wore anything but sandshoes before I joined up and while I got some blisters on top of my hammer toes and on the bony edges of my feet (including high arch) I got around O.K. BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOSE FITTING. Every silly bastard since has tried to make me wear footwear WHICH HAS BEEN TOO SMALL. Since returning to civilian life I could at least choose the best of a bad lot but the only footwear I have been able to wear with some comfort come from America;
2 Traumatic incidents during my war service that I can recall are:
a trying to wear the issue (ammunition) standard Army boots; finally they gave me officer-type cavalry boots which were still not wide or high enough;
b raaf issue boots were ditto but at least I didn't have to do much marching in them. Breaking in (stretching) RAAF shoes less traumatic and a fair bit of the time I had the alternative of sheepskin lined flying boots. I managed (after missing the last bus = truck) to walk back in the dark on an unmade road from the city (Algiers?) to Maison Blanche airport, a distance of some miles in flying boots.
…
d I mention in passing that I had a heavy fall on to my back when I hit the release button on my parachute harness too soon and my backbone has been a mess at the level of my belt for years."
In his evidence before the Veterans' Review Board the Applicant narrated events which he said involved "trauma to his feet and back". The evidence so given to the Board was summarised by it in its reasons for decision under the heading "Applicant's case" as follows (T23/81-82):
"· During the short period he was in the Army he was issued with boots but was unable to lace them up. He had to wear sandshoes because of his big toes and high arches. After he joined the RAAF he wore boots in classrooms and mostly wore flying boots. He told of runs and physical fitness activities while on a P and RT Course in the Army and of a long walk in flying boots after being left without vehicle transport in Algeria while enroute to England after crash landing in Corsica. He also spoke of minor injury sustained during parachute training and bumpy landings while learning to fly in Australia before he was washed out of the course because of shortsightedness.
·A crash landing on an emergency fighter airstrip in Corsica after his aircraft was badly damaged by enemy fire south of Munich. In that landing the rear gunner was killed. The rest of the crew managed to walk away from the crash and had been recovered to Algeria and then to England. Both after this incident and the next following the veteran was granted a period of leave (duration not remembered) to recover both physically and mentally.
·The event referred to in the citation for his BEM. In June 1944 he was navigator in a Lancaster seriously damaged by an enemy fighter over Germany. The plane limped (sic) England in 10/10 cloud in the early morning darkness. The plane was so badly damaged it could not be landed and the pilot ordered the crew to escape by parachute. The rear gunner's parachute had been destroyed by cannon fire. The veteran volunteered to share his parachute and he and the rear gunner jumped together. The rear gunner was dislodged when the parachute opened but the veteran landed safely. The veteran said he had broken through low cloud to a green wavy surface he thought was sea and hit his parachute release above the surface to avoid entanglement in the water. It was in fact a crop and he landed heavily 'on his bum and back' and knocked himself out for about an hour. On recovering consciousness and not knowing whether he was in occupied France or England he began walking and approached a cottage. To his relief the occupant was English. The local policeman was called and he was taken first to a local civilian hospital but he was excited and he wanted to get back to his squadron as soon as he could. He returned to Henlow and was admitted to a RAF hospital overnight. The medical records show his injuries to have been slight shock, bruises and parachute webbing burns on his neck that soon healed. …"
In his evidence before the Tribunal the Applicant in effect reaffirmed the evidence that he had placed before the Board and again referred to problems he had experienced whilst in the Army and engaged on route marches, he being at one stage sent by an Army doctor to Cowra Base Hospital for attention and his ankles being "black and blue" on occasions. As detailed above, whilst in the Air Force he crash landed in Corsica, parachuted over England and, when left without transport, was required to walk the long distance. This factual material was not put at issue by the Respondent. The evidence of the Applicant as to his war time experiences is accepted by the Tribunal.
The Medical Evidence:The Applicant has been seen by medical specialists over the period October 1996 to February 2000. Some of their reports were placed before the delegate and the Review Officer, others before the Veterans' Review Board and all of them before the Tribunal. Relevant material contained in such reports is as follows:
In a report of 30 October 1996 Dr C G McMahon, General Practitioner – Surgeon, reported that the Applicant gave (T5/41):
"… no history of any injury to either foot and the appearances of his feet are consistent in all respects with degenerative osteoarthritis."
On 6 January 1997 Dr D Staniforth, General Practitioner, after certifying as to the Applicant's condition as she then saw it continued by stating (T8/p49):
"He [the Applicant] then had to do a route march in heavy army boots after which his feet became hot & red & inflamed and he was unable to walk at all & had to be left behind and driven to the base camp. Following this he was off duty for a week
This would fit in the category of a significant inflammatory joint disease, as per the statement of principles."In his report of 17 March 1997 Dr S B Riley, Orthopaedic Surgeon, stated inter alia (T15/58):
"… The patient feels that he is 'slowing down' and relates this to injuries both to his feet and to his lumbar spine which the patient feels were consequent to injuries sustained whilst he was a member of the Armed Services during the Second World War.
…
Mr Morgan is suffering from significant degenerative disease of his lumbo-sacral spine and does have a spondylolisthesis of L5 on S1 of some 40% with facet joint arthritis at the lower two lumbar levels. The patient also has significant deformity of both forefeet with marked hallus valgus and hammer toe deformity. …
It is possible that the injuries to the lumbar spine sustained during the patient's period of armed service may have contributed to his subsequent osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine but it is my opinion that the osteoarthritis of the left and right metatarsophalangeal and interphalangeal joints is not related to his period of armed service. …"
However, Dr L Grujic, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Foot, Ankle and Trauma Surgery Specialist, on 8 September 1997 was of the opinion that (Exhibit D):
"… it is impossible to tell whether the forefoot deformities themselves have been caused by the war service and tight shoes."
Dr G K Herkes, Consultant Neurosurgeon, on 20 October 1997 expressed the opinion that (Exhibit E):
"… a significant component is coming from the lumbo-sacral spine and the osteoarthritis of the feet. I have no doubt that the genesis of much of the osteoarthritis was from some trauma he sustained during active service. I would strongly support his claim for a proportionate disability pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs."
Dr P J McNaught, Consultant Physician, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Medicine, on 29 July 1998 reported that the Applicant had described himself as (T20/71)
"… born with painful feet with high arches and from quite early on, he appears to have developed claw toes and bunions. … He reported that he felt his time in the Army and Air Force had greatly aggravated his foot symptoms."
Dr McNaught, following examination, concluded that the Applicant showed:
"… degenerative disease of fore-feet with clawing particularly of the second toes associated with hallux valgus. …
Mr Morgan has mechanical forefoot symptoms related to a combination of degenerative change and collapsing longitudinal arches. …
… he clearly had a problem before he entered the services during the War, but inadequate footwear and mechanical overload of his forefeet in his work during the War may well have been an aggravating factor for the subsequent progression of the degenerative change."
On 6 July 1999, Dr G K Herkes again reported on the Applicant and, more particularly, as to the "worsening problems with his feet". Dr Herkes was of the opinion that the Applicant would satisfy a criteria of the Statement of Principles. He was of the opinion that the Applicant (Exhibit C):
"… had the onset of lumbar spondylolysis related to back injury. In my opinion he would fulfil the criteria for his current back situation to be related within the grounds of reasonable evidence, to the injuries sustained in the baleout."
Dr P N Sambrook, Professor of Rheumatology at the University of Sydney, saw the Applicant in November 1999 and in his report of 2 December 1999 (Exhibit 1), under the sub-heading "History Given", stated that he was told by the Applicant that he:
"… first developed problems with his feet whilst in the Army in relation to the need to perform long route marches due to his inability to wear Army boots. …
Mr Morgan also described several incidents that he felt may be relevant to his feet during his time in Royal Australian Air Force bomber command. …"
The Applicant then described to Professor Sambrook the episode over England when he parachuted from a Lancaster bomber and landed heavily on his back, crash landing on a makeshift airstrip injuring his lumbar spine, and an occasion when he walked a distance of some 14 miles in ill-fitting footwear. The Applicant further described occasions when he had to perform training in ill-fitting footwear including jump training. Professor Sambrook noted the earlier reports of Drs Herkes, Riley and McNaught and, after diagnosing the present condition of the Applicant, stated:
"I have reviewed instrument 300/1995 in regard to congenital hallux valgus as it seems likely Mr Morgan suffered from some degree of forefoot problem before entering the service. Moreover his daughter, who accompanied him, displayed some signs of hallux valgus herself. I would consider that Mr Morgan satisfies factor 1(a) in regard to wearing of ill-fitting footwear and I am not dissuaded by the absence of documentation of this in his service record or on discharge, since medical records were notoriously inadequate during World War II for these sort of problems. In regard to the degenerative changes in his feet, I have reviewed instrument 41/1998 and feel he may satisfy factor 5(e) in regard to malalignment as he has degenerative changes of the MTP joints at the site of his hallux valgus, which is a form of malalignment. For both of these conditions, the relationship is by way of aggravation rather than direct causation. …
In regard to bilateral hammer toe deformity, I understand there are no SOPs for this condition, but it ought to be viewed as part of the continuum of complications of hallux valgus and osteoarthrosis. Accordingly, as the above conditions are probably be (sic) service related in relation to ill-fitting footwear and malalignment, these conditions should also be accepted."
In his evidence before the Tribunal, Professor Sambrook said that in his opinion the Applicant satisfied Factor 1(a) as abovementioned, he being unable to wear standard Army footwear, experiencing problems in the Air Force, the latter service contributing to the disease suffered by the Applicant in a material way. Being referred to Instrument No 352/1995, he identified Factor 2(b)(ii) as being relevant to the Applicant. Professor Sambrook was of the opinion that it was a reasonable hypothesis to connect the hammer toe condition with that already diagnosed by him. The clinical onset of the hammer toe condition likely occurred some time after service but was related to it.
Finally, in this resume of relevant opinion, Dr M R Podgorski, a specialist in Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Medicine, having examined the Applicant and obtained a history from him consistent with that already detailed in these reasons, and having referred to x-rays taken and examined by him, stated (Exhibit B):
"… I would certainly concur with this opinion [that of Dr McNaught of 29 July 1998], and … it is likely Mr. Morgan suffered significant trauma to both feet.
… I would feel that there has been significant and moderate aggravation by evidence of fracture, by evidence of repeated trauma and heavy impact loading to the feet as well as lumbar spine, landing on his back in one of the parachute jumps probably contributed in a major way to advanced and severe/gross degenerative change at L5/S1 disc level and adjacent facet joints. Further, the lack of supportive footwear during that period in the army is likely to have been a substantial aggravating factor in both degenerative change in the feet, osteoarthritis of MTP joints and mid-tarsal, tarsometatarsal joints.
… This in turn could well have led to a neuropathic situation where lack of sensation led to repeated microtrauma of feet and in turn directly aggravated the degree of osteoarthritis in his feet.
Whilst hallux valgus may be a congenital problem and it is likely to have been so in Mr. Morgan's case, repeated significant trauma and lack of supportive footwear during the war would have been significant aggravating factors. Further, significant trauma and heavy impact during jumps and crash landings would have likely aggravated directly his severe degenerative lumbar spine condition, which in turn could have aggravated his feet by mechanisms listed above. …"
DECISION:
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the material tendered before it that the same raises a reasonable hypothesis connecting the bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet of the Applicant, the bilateral hallux valgus of his great toes and the bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes with the circumstances of the Applicant's war service. The Tribunal is thus satisfied these conditions were war-caused.
In being so satisfied, the Tribunal has assessed the reasonableness of the hypothesis in accordance, where applicable, with the Statements of Principles issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority.
The Applicant has sought in his application a pension at rate of 100% of the General Rate. In the ordinary course the Tribunal would adopt a procedure similar to that followed by the Board and refer the matter back to the Respondent for assessment of the appropriate rate of pension. However, in this matter and in the event of the Tribunal deciding to allow the relevant entitlements, which it does, the Respondent asks the Tribunal to grant, and consents to the Tribunal granting, a pension to the Applicant at such rate.
The decision of the Tribunal as above indicated is to grant the Applicant's applications for a pension at 100% of the General Rate and back date its entitlement to 3 July 1996.
The decision under review is set aside, the conditions of bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet of the Applicant, bilateral hallux valgus of his great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes are determined to be war-caused.
Accordingly the Tribunal decides that:
1.the decision of the delegate of the Repatriation Commission dated 24 May 1997 which determined that the disabilities of bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet, bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes were not war-caused pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 is set aside; and
2.the Tribunal substitutes for the decision set aside, a decision that the disabilities of bilateral osteoarthrosis of the feet, bilateral hallux valgus of the great toes and bilateral hammer toe deformity of the second toes are war-caused pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; and
3.pension be granted to the Applicant at 100% of the General Rate with effect from and including 3 July 1996.
I certify that the 37 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:
The Hon Mr R N J Purvis, QC, Deputy President
Signed: .....................................................................................
AssociateDates of Hearing 12 & 16 May 2000
Date of Decision
Solicitor for the Applicant Applicant was self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent Mr R Wallis, Department of Veterans' Affairs
1
0
0