Case: Oliver v Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 408
Outcome: distinguished
v Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 408 (" Oliver ") was a decision of a senior member of the Tribunal. The issue was whether the death of a veteran was due to war service and, in particular, whether the veteran satisfied factor (d) of the relevant principles concerning ischaemic heart disease. The senior member had particular evidence before him and he made certain findings of fact. The circumstances and evidence before the Deputy President in this case were different and Oliver is therefore of no assistance to the resolution of the present matter. I do not think the Deputy President erred. To link the applicant's hypertension with service through a service-related obesity there was a need to show that the applicant was obese at the time of the clinical onset of hypertension and the applicant had plainly not shown that. As I have said, the reference to Oliver does not assist the applicant. Ground 3 The contention in this ground of appeal is that the Tribunal erred in law in determining that the date of clinical onset of the applicant's hypertension was 24 August 1984 and that there was no evidence that the applicant had a pre-existing condition of hypertension that worsened. This ground does not raise a question of law. The contention in this ground of appeal is that, in view of the Tribunal's decision in Oliver , the Tribunal erred in law in determining that there was no evidence that the applicant was suffering from dyslipidaemia as defined in the SoP prior to the clinical onset of the ischaemic heart disease and that the applicant's claim was not supported by factor 6(f). This ground of appeal does not raise a question of law. The Deputy President's findings were open to him on the evidence before him. Oliver does not support the applicant's submission for reasons previously given. Ground 8 The contention in this ground of appeal is that the Tribunal erred in law in determining that it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the material before it raised a connection between the ischaemic heart disease and his compulsory National Service in the Army within the meaning of s 120B(3)(a) of the Act. This ground of appeal does not raise a question of law. The Deputy President was not required to consider the matter in s 120B(3)(a) in circumstances where he was satisfied that s 120B(3)(b) had not been met. Oliver and Deledio do not support the applicant's submission for reasons previously given. Ground 9 The contention in this ground of appeal is that the Tribunal erred in law in determining that the decision under review as varied by the Board was affirmed. This ground of appeal does not raise a question of law. Again, Oliver , Deledio and O'Brien do not support the applicant's submissions. Ground 13 This ground of appeal is without content. No particulars are provided as to the test said to have been applied by the Tribunal, the reasons it was the wrong test, the details of the Tribunal's application of the SoPs and the statements made from the bar table. This ground of appeal does not raise a question of law. Reference was made to Oliver , Deledio and O'Brien but, for reasons previously given, those cases do not advance the applicant's submission. Ground 14