Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 616
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2006/1697
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re PAULINE WHEELER Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly
Dr MEC Thorpe, MemberDate16 July 2008
PlaceSydney
Decision The reviewable decision is affirmed. ...................[sgd]...................
Presiding Member
Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – claim for war widow's pension – eligible service conceded – kind of death – whether veterans’ death war-caused – Statement of Principles concerning Chronic Bronchitis & Emphysema relied on - death certificate stated underlying cause metastatic prostate cancer and cardiopulmonary arrest – medical evidence considered – held kind of death metastatic prostate cancer – death not caused by accepted condition coronary artery disease – reviewable decision affirmed
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 37
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, ss 8, 196B, 120, 120B, 196B
Statement of Principles concerning Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema (No. 31 of 2004)
Repatriation Commission v Hancock (2003) 37 AAR 383
Repatriation Commission v Codd (2007) 95 ALD 619
REASONS FOR DECISION
16 July 2008 Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly
Dr MEC Thorpe, Member1. Mr John Wheeler served in the Australian Army between 30 July 1942 and 7 March 1946, which is eligible war service within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act). He died on 20 September 2005. On 22 December 2005, his widow, Mrs Pauline Wheeler, applied for a pension in respect of his death. Her application was refused on 17 January 2006 by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission who determined that Mr Wheeler's death was not war-caused. That decision was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 29 November 2006. Mrs Wheeler seeks review of the decision as affirmed.
2. Mr Wheeler had one accepted disability, coronary artery disease (CAD).
THE ISSUES
3. The issues in these proceedings are:
a) What was the kind of death suffered by Mr Wheeler, and, having determined that question;
b) Was Mr Wheeler's death relevantly connected to his service?
c) Alternatively, did Mr Wheeler die from his accepted condition, coronary artery disease (see s 8(1)(f) of the Act)?
BACKGROUND
4. Recorded on the Death Certificate, under the heading “Cause of Death and Duration of last illness,” was the following:
Part I
Cardio pulmonary arrest, seconds
Metastatic prostate cancer, 3 years
Part II
Chronic airway limitation
Chronic atrial fibrillation, years
Probable pneumonia, days
5. Where a veteran has eligible service, the standard of proof to be applied to determine whether a death was war-caused is reasonable satisfaction (s 120(4) of the Act). However, when a claim is made after 1 June 1994, s 120B qualifies that provision. Section 120B requires that the material before the relevant decision-maker raise a connection between the death of the person and the particular service rendered, and that there is in force relevantly a Statement of Principles (SoP) determined under s 196B(3) of the Act that upholds the contention that the death…
Continue reading Wheeler and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wheeler and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 616
- Case
- [2008] AATA 616
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to ascertain whether the veteran's death from metastatic prostate cancer and cardiopulmonary arrest was attributable to the war service. The Tribunal had to consider the Statement of Principles concerning Chronic Bronchritis and Emphysema, which outlined the accepted conditions for pension eligibility. The Court examined the medical evidence provided and the content of the death certificate to decide if the veteran's death could be classified under the accepted conditions. The Tribunal had to determine if the death was caused by an accepted condition such as coronary artery disease or another unrelated condition.
In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that the veteran's death was caused by metastatic prostate cancer, which was not an accepted condition under the relevant Statement of Principles. The Tribunal found that the death was not caused by the accepted condition of coronary artery disease. The medical evidence did not establish a causal link between the veteran's service and the metastatic prostate cancer. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, rejecting the claim for a war widow's pension. The Court's decision was based on the clear evidence that the underlying cause of death was metastatic prostate cancer and not a war-related condition.
Orders
Orders of the court
The reviewable decision 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.