Crawford and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim by Mr. Crawford against the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission concerning a lumbar spondylosis condition. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Crawford's service had contributed to the onset of this condition to a significant degree, as required for compensation under the relevant legislation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Crawford's lumbar spondylosis constituted an "ailment" for the purposes of the Act and, crucially, whether it qualified as an "injury (other than a disease)" or a disease. This distinction was important for assessing the causal link between his military service and the condition. The Tribunal also had to consider the date of clinical onset and whether any contribution from his service was significant.

The Tribunal reasoned that lumbar spondylosis is a degenerative condition common after the fifth decade of life and is often associated with age and general wear and tear. Medical evidence indicated that the condition most likely developed in 2018, well after Mr. Crawford's discharge, and was attributed by an orthopaedic surgeon entirely to constitutional factors and advanced age, with no noted record of back pain during service. The Tribunal applied principles from High Court decisions, such as *Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd* and *Compensation Commission v May*, which distinguish between an "injury" and a "disease," noting that while "suddenness" can be a useful factor in this distinction, it is not always a prerequisite for an injury. In this instance, the degenerative nature of spondylosis was considered more akin to a disease than a sudden physiological change.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr. Crawford's lumbar spondylosis was not shown to have been contributed to in a significant degree by his military service.