Derry and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Derry against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his entitlement to benefits for a left shoulder condition. Mr. Derry served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1971 to 1993. While his right shoulder injury, sustained in 1986, was accepted as defence-caused, he sought acceptance for left shoulder osteoarthritis and rotator cuff syndrome. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Derry's left shoulder condition satisfied the relevant Statement of Principles (SoP) for acceptance as a defence-caused condition.

The Tribunal considered the legal issues arising from the application of the SoP concerning rotator cuff syndrome and osteoarthritis. Specifically, it examined whether Mr. Derry's condition met the criteria outlined in the SoP, particularly regarding the requirement for an injury to the affected shoulder within a specified period before the clinical onset of the condition. The Tribunal also reviewed the evidence concerning the diagnosis of Mr. Derry's left shoulder condition, including radiological findings and medical opinions, and whether these aligned with the causal factors stipulated in the SoP.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr. Derry did not satisfy the requirements of the SoP for rotator cuff syndrome, as there was no evidence of a specific injury to his left shoulder. Mr. Derry himself denied any such injury, and the SoP did not recognise overuse of the opposite shoulder as a causal factor. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the opinion of Dr. Khursandi, who diagnosed rotator cuff syndrome and attributed some cause to a football injury in 1986, to be of limited weight, as it was not supported by radiological evidence of tendonitis and was partly based on an injury Mr. Derry denied. The Tribunal also noted that previous considerations under a different SoP for osteoarthritis had also found the causal factors not to be satisfied due to time limitations. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.