Cox and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against decisions of the Repatriation Commission that his cryptococcal meningitis resulting in blindness (CMRB) and depressive disorder (DD) were not defence-caused. The Applicant had served in the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force, with his blindness being caused by cryptococcal meningitis, a rare fungal infection. The Applicant did not contend that he contracted the infection during his service, but rather that a delay in diagnosis and treatment by the Base Medical Facility at RAAF Pearce rendered the resulting blindness and subsequent depression defence-caused.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the material before it established, on the balance of probabilities, a connection between the Applicant's CMRB and his defence service. This involved considering whether there was a delay in diagnosis and treatment by the Base Medical Facility. If such a connection was found, and given the absence of an applicable Statement of Principles for CMRB, the Tribunal had to assess whether the CMRB was a defence-caused injury or disease under section 70(5)(d) of the *Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth), meaning it was contributed to in a material degree by, or aggravated by, his defence service. Finally, if the CMRB was found to be defence-caused, the Tribunal needed to consider whether the Applicant's DD was also defence-caused, a concession the Respondent had made if the primary condition was established.

The Tribunal considered conflicting expert medical evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of the Applicant's condition. It noted that the hearing had been extended and required an adjournment due to procedural fairness issues arising from the order in which witnesses were called and the briefing of expert witnesses. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decisions of the Repatriation Commission, finding that the material before it did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, a connection between the Applicant's CMRB and his defence service. Consequently, the Tribunal did not need to determine whether the condition was defence-caused under section 70(5)(d) of the Act, nor did it need to consider the defence-caused nature of the depressive disorder.