Sheridan and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Sheridan against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his claim for diabetes mellitus (type 2). The applicant’s defence service occurred between 1972 and 1975. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant’s accepted condition of lumbar spondylosis, and a related ankle injury, had caused his obesity, which in turn led to his type 2 diabetes. The case was heard by Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the criteria set out in the Statement of Principles (SOP) concerning diabetes mellitus No. 90 of 2011, as amended by Instrument No. 89 of 2014. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant’s type 2 diabetes was defence-caused, which required establishing a connection between the condition and his defence service on the balance of probabilities. This involved assessing whether the applicant was overweight for at least five years before the clinical onset of diabetes, or unable to undertake physical activity greater than three METs for at least ten years before its onset, as defined by the SOP.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s argument that his lumbar spondylosis and ankle injury had limited his ability to exercise, leading to weight gain and subsequent morbid obesity, thereby causing his diabetes. However, the Tribunal found that the clinical onset of the applicant’s lumbar spondylosis was recorded as 14 September 2009, which was significantly after his defence service concluded. Crucially, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the material before it raised a connection between the applicant's diabetes and his defence service, nor that the relevant SOP upheld the contention that the diabetes was defence-caused on the balance of probabilities.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Sheridan’s diabetes mellitus (type 2) was defence-caused within the meaning of the Act. The reviewable decision of the Repatriation Commission was therefore affirmed.