Wheeler and Repatriation Commission

Case [2008] AATA 616


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, Member

Date16 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, Member  

1.      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

Details
AGLC
Wheeler and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 616
Case
[2008] AATA 616
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal involved a claim for a war widow's pension by Wheeler, who sought compensation from the Repatriation Commission. The eligibility for the pension was not in dispute, but the nature of the veteran's death was contested. Wheeler argued that the veteran's death was caused by conditions related to his service, while the Commission contended that the death was due to unrelated causes. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the veteran's death was war-caused and, if so, whether it was due to the conditions outlined in the relevant Statement of Principles.

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.