Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 65
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2001/396
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re HILDA THOMAS Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr J D Campbell, Member Date23 January 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be affirmed. [SGD] Dr J D Campbell Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - war widow pension - war caused death - B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of duodenum - issue of Helicobacter pylori infection - concurrent evidence
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 – ss 9, 120, 120A
Statement of Principles Instrument No. 80 of 1999 concerning Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
REASONS FOR DECISION
23 January 2003 Dr J D Campbell, Member 1. In this matter, Mrs Hilda Thomas ("the Applicant") seeks a review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission ("the Respondent") dated 15 March 2000 that determined, that the death of her husband, the late veteran Mr James Thomas was not war caused, in that the evidence did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the death of the late veteran with his operational service. This decision was reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board ("VRB") and affirmed in a decision dated 22 February 2001.
2. A hearing was held before the Tribunal in Sydney on 28 August 2002 at which the Applicant was represented by Mr Vincent of Counsel. The Respondent was represented by Mr Modder, an advocate, from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Applicant and Professor Zwi presented oral evidence on this day. The matter was held over until 13 November 2002 at which concurrent evidence was taken from Dr Garvey and Professor Zwi, together with closing submissions.
3. The following documents were placed into evidence before the Tribunal:
Exhibit
Description
Date
T1-T19
p1-p59Documents prepared pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
A1
Applicant's Statement of Facts & Contentions
20 November 2001
A2
Statement of Mrs Hilda Thomas
28 February 2002
A3
Statement of Mr John Little
20 February 2002
A4
Medical Report of Professor J Shepherd
8 November 2001
A5
Medical Report of Dr J Garvey
9 July 2002
A6
Medical Report of Dr J Garvey
11 November 2002
A7
Five Articles provided by Dr J Garvey
13 November 2002
R1
Respondent's Statement of Facts & Contentions
14 August 2002
R2
Clinical Notes of Dr Wong
R3
Clinical Notes Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital
R4
Medical Report of Dr Hall
12 November 2001
R5
Medical Report of Dr Hall
3 January 2002
R6
Medical Report of Professor Zwi
23 June 2002
R7
Clinical Notes Concord Hospital
issue
4. The relevant issue in this matter is whether the late veteran's death from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was war-caused.
legislation
5. The relevant legislation in this matter is the Veterans' Entitlements Act1986 ("the Act") and in particular sections 9, 120, 120A and Statement of Principles Instrument No.80 of 1999 concerning non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
background
6. The Applicant lodged a claim (T11) for a widow's pension on 13 March 2000 in which she…
Continue reading Thomas and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thomas and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 65
- Case
- [2003] AATA 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were the interpretation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, specifically sections 9, 120, and 120A, and the relevance of Statement of Principles Instrument No. 80 of 1999 concerning Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Tribunal had to determine whether the wife's death was war-caused and whether the evidence supported a link between her illness and the veteran's service, particularly concerning the presence and impact of Helicobacter pylori infection. The Tribunal considered expert medical evidence and concurrent evidence on the matter.
The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the wife's death and any war service-related factors, including Helicobacter pylori infection. The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence available. It determined that the wife's death did not meet the criteria for a war-caused death under the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Executor Trustee of the Repatriation Commission, dismissing the appeal.
The Tribunal's decision affirmed the respondent's decision and maintained the original determination that Thomas was not entitled to the war widow pension. The Tribunal did not find any basis to alter the outcome of the case based on the evidence presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal determines that the decision under review be 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.