Bowman and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the claim of Mr Bowman, who alleged that the amputation of his testicle was a result of his employment. Mr Bowman was deceased at the time of the Tribunal's decision. The core dispute concerned the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's liability for compensation in relation to the injury.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Bowman's injury, specifically the amputation of his testicle, was a consequence of his service. This involved assessing the reliability of medical records, the significance of examining a patient when the history of an alleged injury is relevant, and the appropriate use of evidence regarding what would usually be expected in such circumstances. The Tribunal also considered whether the evidence of a key witness's observations had been adequately challenged.

The Tribunal found that Mr Bowman did suffer injuries that ultimately led to the removal of his left testicle due to his employment. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal applied principles concerning the weight to be given to medical evidence, particularly where a patient's history is crucial and the patient is no longer available for examination. The Tribunal also noted the failure to challenge the observations of a key witness. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision and substituted its own finding.

The Tribunal decided that the respondent, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, was liable for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Defence-Related Claims) 1988 in respect of the injuries sustained in April 1989. The Tribunal reserved liberty to apply regarding costs within 14 days, and in default of such application, ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings, to be adjudicated by the Tribunal if not agreed.