Smith and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mr Smith of a decision by the Veterans’ Review Board to affirm the refusal of his claim for a disability pension in respect of Parkinson’s Disease. Mr Smith had served in the Royal Australian Navy between 1963 and 1972 and had previously had claims accepted for post-traumatic stress disorder and sensorineural hearing loss. The claim for Parkinson’s Disease was lodged in May 2020, and the delegate refused it on 3 May 2021. The Veterans’ Review Board affirmed this decision on 23 May 2022. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the material before it raised a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Smith’s Parkinson’s Disease with the circumstances of his operational service.

The Tribunal was required to consider the provisions of section 120 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, which sets out the standard of proof for war-caused diseases. Specifically, the Tribunal had to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no sufficient ground for determining that the disease was war-caused if the material before it did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the disease with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the veteran. Mr Smith’s advocates had initially suggested hypotheses relating to exposure to Agent Orange and post-traumatic stress disorder, but these were no longer pressed. The remaining hypothesis contended that a regular smoking habit, which commenced during his operational service and increased over time, was causally related to his Parkinson’s Disease.

The Tribunal found that there was scant material to support key elements of the smoking hypothesis, particularly the assertion that Mr Smith formed a regular smoking habit in or about March 1970 which was causally related to his operational service. This was further complicated by conflicting evidence regarding Mr Smith’s smoking history, with documentary evidence suggesting he never smoked, while other evidence adduced in these proceedings supported the hypothesis. Crucially, there was no contemporaneous evidence in his service or medical records to corroborate either version of his smoking history. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the material before it did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr Smith’s Parkinson’s Disease with his operational service.

The decision to refuse Mr Smith’s disability claim in respect of Parkinson’s Disease was affirmed.