Prendergast and Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] AATA 495


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 495

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No Q2000/252

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

)

Re CHRISTINE PRENDERGAST

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr IR Way, Member

Date30 May 2003 

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. 

...................(Sgd)......................

IR Way
  Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – benefits and entitlements – war widow’s pension – whether veteran’s death was war-caused – ischaemic heart disease - whether reasonable hypothesis established – whether veteran was obese for a period of at least 2 years within the 15 years immediately before the clinical onset of ischaemic heart disease

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 5B, 6A, 8, 11, 13, 14, 119, 120, 120A

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Cook (1998) 160 ALR 17
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879

REASONS FOR DECISION

30 May 2003  Mr IR Way, Member            

1.       This is an application by Christine Prendergast (“the applicant”) for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission made on 25 May 1999 and affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) on 3 February 2000, which determined that the death of the applicant’s husband, Leonard Prendergast (“the veteran”), was not war-caused.

2. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1–T6) and other documentary evidence as follows:

§Exhibit A1     Statement of Christine Elizabeth Prendergast dated 11 December 2001

§Exhibit A2     Supplementary Statement of Christine Elizabeth Prendergast dated 20 June 2002

§Exhibit A3     Report of Dr EG Galea dated 7 March 2002

§Exhibit A4     Operator’s Flying Log Book – LW Prendergast dated 13 October 1943

3.       The applicant was represented by Mr D O’Gorman of counsel, instructed by Gilshenan and Luton, and the respondent was represented by Mr M Smith, Departmental Advocate.  The applicant gave oral evidence.

4. Under section 13 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”), the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension by way of compensation to the dependants of a veteran, where the death of the veteran was war-caused. A dependant of a deceased veteran, including a widow (section 11), may make a claim to a pension under section 14 of the Act.

5.       The veteran was born on 10 November 1923 and served in the RAAF during World War II from 21 May 1942 to 6 November 1945.  During his service with the RAAF the veteran was engaged in various flights to New Guinea and as such the whole of his service is operational service. 

6. The applicant is a widow of a veteran who rendered operational service as defined in subsections 5B and 6A of the Act, namely continuous full-time service outside Australia during World War II.

7.        The veteran died on 26 January 1999, aged 75 years.  The cause of the veteran’s death is recorded in the veteran’s death certificate as circulatory collapse (hours) due to as a consequence of ischaemic heart disease (19 years). 

8.       At…

Continue reading Prendergast and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Prendergast and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 495
Case
[2003] AATA 495
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a widow, Prendergast, who applied for a war widow’s pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Repatriation Commission denied her application on the basis that the veteran’s death was not war-caused. The matter was brought before the court for review. The central legal issues pertained to whether the veteran’s ischaemic heart disease was reasonably attributable to his war service and if there was evidence that he was obese for a period of at least two years within the 15 years immediately before the clinical onset of the disease. The court had to interpret relevant sections of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and apply precedents such as Repatriation Commission v Deledio and Repatriation Commission v Cook.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the veteran’s medical history and the factors contributing to his ischaemic heart disease. It considered the medical reports and expert opinions, as well as the statutory requirements for establishing a causal link between the veteran’s war service and his disease. The court also assessed whether the veteran was obese for the requisite period, which is a condition precedent for entitlement under the Act. After thorough analysis, the court found that the evidence did not establish a reasonable hypothesis that the veteran’s ischaemic heart disease was war-caused and that the requirement of obesity for at least two years was not met. The court relied on the relevant statutory provisions and case law to support its findings.

Given the findings, the court upheld the original decision of the Repatriation Commission, affirming the denial of the war widow’s pension. The reasoning was grounded in the statutory criteria and the weight of the evidence presented. The widow’s appeal was thus dismissed. The orders made by the court reflect the affirmation of the Commission’s decision, concluding that the application for a war widow’s pension was not substantiated under the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.