Connelly and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Barbara Connelly against a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) to deny her claim for compensation following the death of her husband, Mr Blue Connelly. Mr Connelly, a former member of the Royal Australian Air Force, had recognised compensable conditions, including cervical and lumbar spondylosis and osteoarthritis of the right knee. Mrs Connelly sought compensation under section 17 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (the Act) on the basis that she was dependent on her late husband. The Commission had affirmed its denial of liability for Mr Connelly’s death, leading to Mrs Connelly’s application for merits review by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Connelly’s death was contributed to a significant degree by his service-related conditions, and whether Mrs Connelly was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in circumstances where the precise cause of Mr Connelly’s fall, which likely led to his death, was unknown. The Tribunal was required to determine if the compensable conditions "resulted in" Mr Connelly's death, as stipulated by sections 14 and 17 of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the meaning of "results in death" in the context of the Act, referencing High Court and NSW Court of Appeal decisions on causation. It distinguished the present case from *Comcare v Martin*, which concerned the phrase "as a result of" in a different section of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Instead, the Tribunal found the principles outlined in *Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates* more applicable, which require a common sense evaluation of the causal chain and a determination of whether the death "resulted from" the work injury based on the evidence. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish with sufficient certainty that Mr Connelly’s compensable conditions caused or significantly contributed to his fall, and therefore could not be satisfied that these conditions resulted in his death.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no principle of benefit of the doubt that could overcome the uncertainty regarding the cause of Mr Connelly’s fall. As the evidence did not allow the Tribunal to be positively satisfied that the compensable conditions resulted in his death, Mrs Connelly's application failed. The Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decision of 6 December 2018, which refused compensation under section 17 of the Act.