Scott and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Scott against a decision of the Repatriation Commission affirming a delegate's determination that her husband, Mr Alexander Scott, did not have a "war caused" death. Mr Scott, who served in the Australian Army including operational service in Korea, died from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, atypical pneumonia, and hypertension. Mrs Scott's claim for a war widow's pension was predicated on the assertion that her husband's death was war-caused, which would entitle her to a pension under the *Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986* (VE Act).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the material before it raised a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Scott's death to the circumstances of his operational service. This determination was to be made in accordance with any applicable Statements of Principles (SoPs) issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider Statement of Principles No. 75 of 2012, as amended by Amendment Instrument No. 37 of 2016, concerning acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and whether factor 6(b) – exposure to benzene as specified – was met.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Repatriation Commission v Deledio* (1998) 83 FCR 82, which outline a four-step process for determining if a death is "war caused" when relying on operational service. This process involves assessing if the material raises a reasonable hypothesis, whether an applicable SoP exists, if the hypothesis contains the factors stipulated by the SoP, and finally, a factual assessment of those factors. In this case, the relevant SoP required exposure to benzene on at least 600 days within a continuous period of five years before the clinical onset of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The Tribunal noted that the veteran's service as a vehicle driver from March 1955 to March 1956, and his exposure to fumes while living underground and in tents in Korea, were considered. However, it was conceded that these circumstances did not meet the 600-day requirement of the SoP.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the material before it did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Scott's death to his operational service in accordance with the applicable Statement of Principles. Therefore, the decision under review was affirmed.