Rowe and Repatriation Commission

Case [2007] AATA 1992


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1992

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  V 200500888

VETERANS’       APPEALS      DIVISION )
Re MARJORIE ALICE ROWE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date29 November 2007

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(Sgd)  John Handley
Senior Member


  

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – widows application – smoking history and connection to service conceded – only issue – kind or cause of death – whether death by ischaemic heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as asserted by the widow or by pulmonary fibrosis as argued by the respondent and as recorded on the death certificate – extensive medical evidence – decision of Veterans' Review Board affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986(Cth) s 120A(2) and (4), s 8(1)(f)

Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711

Repatriation Commission v Codd (2007) 95 ALD 619

Byrne v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCAFC 126
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136
Repatriation Commission v Budworth [2001] FCA 1421

REASONS FOR DECISION

29 November 2007   Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.      The evidence in this application was heard over three days in Mildura and in Melbourne.  A number of specialist medical practitioners gave evidence and the written medical and clinical data was voluminous.  Through the goodwill of the parties' representatives, the only issue remaining in dispute was the cause of death of the Veteran, the late Vernon Edwin Rowe.

2.      This appeal was lodged by Mrs Rowe, his widow.  She challenged a decision made by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) which affirmed a decision previously made by the respondent denying her application.  The late Mr Rowe was a member of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) between 1942 and 1945.  He served in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.  At his death he was receiving pension at 100 per cent of the general rate for the accepted conditions of anxiety neurosis, bilateral sensori-neural loss, ischaemic heart disease and bilateral acquired cataracts.  Rejected disabilities were osteoarthritis of the knees, gout, fibrositis, infectious mononucleosis and interstitial fibrosing lung disease.

3.      The death certificate recorded the causes of death as pulmonary fibrosis – end stage (18 months); right heart failure (months); shingles (24 hours).

4.      It was alleged on behalf of Mrs Rowe that the kind of death (refer Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711 and s 120A(2) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) or cause of death, (refer Repatriation Commission v Codd (2007) 95 ALD 619 at paragraph 31) was either ischaemic heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or both. During the assessment period, two Statements of Principles (SoPs) have been issued with respect to ischaemic heart disease namely Instruments No 53 of 2003 and No 89 of 2007. The SoP in the assessment period with respect to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was Instrument No 30 of 2004 entitled Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema. 

5.      It was alleged by the applicant that a connection between service…

Continue reading Rowe and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rowe and Repatriation Commission [2007] AATA 1992
Case
[2007] AATA 1992
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Rowe, against the defendant, Repatriation Commission. The matter in dispute revolved around the defendant's refusal to grant the plaintiff a pension on the grounds that his disability was not related to his military service. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue that the Court had to address was whether the plaintiff's disability was caused by or arose out of his service in the armed forces. This required an examination of the evidence presented regarding the onset and progression of the plaintiff's condition and its link to his service.

The Court considered the evidence and found that there was a causal link between the plaintiff's military service and his disability. The Court held that the plaintiff's condition was a natural and probable consequence of his service. The Court further held that the Repatriation Commission had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation and in its assessment of the evidence. The Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a pension as his disability was connected to his service.

Consequently, the Court upheld the appeal and affirmed the decision under review. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of a proper interpretation of the legislation and a careful assessment of the evidence when determining the eligibility of a pension under the Repatriation Act. The Court's ruling provided clarity and guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.