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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the appeal of Dalgrin against a decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission concerning compensation for injuries sustained during Defence service. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's left clavicle fracture and right ulna fracture arose out of, or in the course of, his Defence service.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the Commission had erred in denying liability for the applicant's claimed conditions. This required the Tribunal to assess whether the activities during which the injuries occurred were induced or encouraged by the employer, the Australian Defence Force, in the context of the applicant's training for SASR selection and subsequent recognition for "Exemplary Service."

The Tribunal applied the principle established in *Comcare v PVYW* [2013] 250 CLR 246, which posits that the central question is whether the employer induced or encouraged the employee to engage in the activity at the time of injury. Considering the findings regarding the expectations of a soldier undergoing SASR selection training and the recognition of "Exemplary Service," the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's injuries did arise out of, or in the course of, his Defence service.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commission's decisions denying liability for the left clavicle fracture and the right ulna fracture. It substituted decisions that the applicant suffered these fractures as a result of his Defence service and remitted the matters to the Commission for further action.