This is my last one for you, and this is the scenario: the benefit of the doubt. For the last six months of his life, an 87-year-old World War II veteran is having severe flashbacks and he's suffering from what the doctors diagnose as post-traumatic stress disorder. He goes to DVA; he makes a claim; he's denied because there's no proof he's suffering from wartime illnesses.
Where does the benefit of the doubt apply in this man's case? He's already dead, so it didn't work out for him, but how does the benefit of the doubt apply in that situation?
When I explain the benefit of the doubt to veterans and RCMP, I explain that it's like the tie goes to the runner, in baseball terms. In many cases that I've seen, we ask that the benefit of the doubt be applied. It comes back refused because it says they need more medical evidence.
For an aging World War II veteran, what more medical evidence does he need when he has a clinical analysis that he has post-traumatic stress disorder more than likely caused from his wartime activities? Yet he was denied.
Where would the benefit of the doubt apply in that particular case?