Bailey and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mrs Bailey for a review of a decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) to deny liability for her compensation claim for Morton's metatarsalgia. The dispute centred on whether Mrs Bailey's condition constituted a "service injury" under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth) (MRCA), and specifically whether the clinical onset of the condition occurred during her defence service. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the issues.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to identify the condition Mrs Bailey suffered from, determine the date of its clinical onset, and assess whether the condition was a service injury under the MRCA. This involved considering the relevant Statement of Principles (SOP) and whether the conditions stipulated within it, particularly regarding the wearing of restricted footwear for two years prior to the clinical onset of Morton's metatarsalgia, were met. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the condition arose out of, or was attributable to, Mrs Bailey's defence service, or if it satisfied any of the alternative tests for establishing a sufficient connection between the injury and her service.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the date of clinical onset. While Mrs Bailey contended that the signs and symptoms were present during her service, the MRCC had determined the date of onset to be 8 October 2009, when a podiatrist made a provisional diagnosis of Morton's neuroma, which was later confirmed. This date fell 16 months after Mrs Bailey's Reserve service concluded. The applicable SOP required the claimant to have been wearing restricted footwear for the two years preceding the clinical onset. As the Tribunal found the clinical onset occurred after her service ended, it concluded that Mrs Bailey could not satisfy this factor of the SOP, and therefore, her Morton's metatarsalgia could not be said to have arisen as a result of her military service.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the MRCC's decision, finding that Mrs Bailey had not established the necessary connection between her condition and her defence service under the MRCA and the relevant SOP. The application for review was dismissed.