Cooper and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Veterans Review Board concerning the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The Veteran, who served in the Australian Army Reserves and then the Australian Regular Army from 1997 to 2019, claimed acceptance of liability for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic rhinosinusitis, and bilateral blepharitis. The claim for non-Hodgkin lymphoma was based on alleged exposure to numerous hazards during warlike and non-warlike service, including in Afghanistan, and exposure to substances such as benzene and ionising radiation, as well as chronic inflammation from previous hernia repair surgery. The claims for chronic rhinosinusitis and bilateral blepharitis arose from the treatment of the non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether a reasonable hypothesis had been raised linking the Veteran's non-Hodgkin lymphoma to his warlike or non-warlike service. This required the Tribunal to consider the application of the *Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004* (Cth) (MRC Act), specifically sections 335(1) and (2), which stipulate that the standard of proof for such claims is "beyond reasonable doubt". The Tribunal was also required to consider the principles set out in *Deledio* regarding the assessment of hypotheses in veterans' claims.

The Tribunal applied the *Deledio* principles, finding that the hypothesis that the Veteran's non-Hodgkin lymphoma was a service disease resulting from claimed exposures had some support in the material before it, thus satisfying Step 1. It was also satisfied that Step 2 was met, as there was a relevant Statement of Principles (SOP) in force for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In assessing Step 3, the Tribunal considered the credibility of the Veteran, finding him to be an open and honest witness whose evidence could be accepted without corroboration, drawing on the principles from *Hunt v Repatriation Commission* and *Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation*. Despite acknowledging the challenges faced by the Veteran, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that a reasonable hypothesis linking his non-Hodgkin lymphoma to his service had not been established to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the Veteran's claims for acceptance of liability for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic rhinosinusitis, and bilateral blepharitis were not accepted.