Brown and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim for compensation by an applicant diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, who had served in the Australian Defence Force. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's Parkinson's disease was contributed to "to a significant degree" by his military service, as required by section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant contended that research and medical advice indicated a link between Parkinson's disease and smoking, and that his service-related factors, including smoking, should be considered significant contributors.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's Parkinson's disease was contributed to "to a significant degree" by his service. This involved interpreting the meaning of "to a significant degree" within the context of the Act, which requires a contribution that is "substantially more than material." The Tribunal also had to consider the evidence regarding the causal relationship, if any, between smoking and the development of Parkinson's disease.

The Tribunal's reasoning was primarily based on the medical evidence presented. It noted that the applicant's diagnosis of Parkinson's disease in July 2013 was not in dispute. However, the crucial issue was the degree of contribution from service. The Tribunal referred to expert opinion, including that of Associate Professor Arman Sabet, who concluded that smoking is not a causal factor for Parkinson's disease and that there is scientific data suggesting an inverse association, with smokers having a lower risk of developing the condition. This evidence was found to be consistent with information before the Repatriation Medical Authority, indicating no causal relationship between smoking or cessation of smoking and the development of Parkinson's disease. The Tribunal applied the legal principle that a contribution must be "substantially more than material" to be considered "significant," citing Comcare v Power. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's military service contributed to a significant degree to the development of his Parkinson's disease.

The Reviewable Decision was affirmed.