Drazinic and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)
[2025] ARTA 378
•17 April 2025
Drazinic and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 378 (17 April 2025)
Applicant/s: Jakov Antun Drazinic
Respondent: Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Tribunal Number: 2023/7284
Tribunal:Deputy President O'Donovan
Place:Brisbane
Date:17 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Damien O’Donovan
........................................................................
Deputy President O'Donovan
Catchwords
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission – acceptance of liability for groin strain – whether the accepted condition resulted in permanent impairment – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14, 24.
Statement of Reasons
The applicant enlisted in the Australian military on 20 July 1999. After completing basic training he was assigned to a unit, but due to deteriorating health he was medically discharged on 17 September 2000.
Prior to discharge, during basic training, the applicant suffered a number of groin strains. The first was on 9 August 1999.[1] This was followed by a number of re-aggravations including one on 23 August 1999.[2]
[1] T-Documents T13, 63; ST1
[2] T-Documents, T13, 115
On 29 November 2021, the applicant submitted a claim in relation to these groin strains.[3] The injuries were accepted as meeting the threshold for a compensable injury set out in s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth) (‘DRCA’).
[3] T-Documents, T4, 13-19.
After liability was accepted for the injury, the applicant submitted a claim for permanent impairment in relation to it. The claim for compensation was received on 22 March 2022.
On 14 June 2022, the respondent determined that it was not liable to pay compensation for permanent impairment in relation to the groin strain.[4] The delegate determined that ‘based on the information available to me, your service-related condition has not caused an impairment’.[5]
[4] Ibid, T8, 36-40.
[5] Ibid, 39.
On 8 May 2023, the applicant sought reconsideration of that decision.[6]
[6] Ibid, T9, 41.
On 21 July 2023, a review officer determined that there was no assessable impairment arising from the groin strain.[7]
[7] Ibid, T10, 46-51.
On 4 October 2023, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) for an extension of time to submit an application to have the decision reviewed. The AAT extended the time for seeking review.
On 14 October 2024, matters before the AAT were transferred to the newly created Administrative Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).
The matter was heard on 24 October 2024 and 21 March 2025.
Legal Framework
In order to succeed in his claim, the applicant must establish that he meets the requirements of s 24 of the DRC Act. It provides as follows:
Compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment
(1) Where an injury to an employee results in a permanent impairment, the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to the employee in respect of the injury.
(2) For the purposes of determining whether an impairment is permanent, the MRCC shall have regard to:
(a)The duration of the impairment;
(b)The likelihood of improvement in the employee’s condition;
(c)Whether the employee has undertaken all reasonable rehabilitative treatment for the impairment; and
(d)Any other relevant matters
…
(5) The MRCC shall determine the degree of permanent impairment of the employee resulting from an injury under the provisions of the approved Guide.
(6) The degree of permanent impairment shall be expressed as a percentage.
(7) Subject to section 25, if:
(a) the employee has a permanent impairment other than a hearing loss; and
(b) the MRCC determines that the degree of permanent impairment is less than 10%;
an amount of compensation is not payable to the employee under this section.
‘Permanent’ is defined to mean ‘likely to continue indefinitely’.
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal consisted of the following:
Exhibit No / T-Doc reference
Description
A1
Documents supplied to the Draznics by the FOI decision of 15 May 2023
A2
Bundle of material that commences with the ‘internal communications bundle’ and concludes with an e-mail from Caitlin F, an associate of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 30th of January 2024 (68 pages)
A3
Referral prepared by Doctor Peter Georgius dated 23 September 2024 to IVID radiology.
A4
Diagnostic assessments of Dr Colan McGree (ST15, 849-856)
R1
Bundle of material produced under summons from Dr Peter Georgius (17 pages)
R2
Report of Dr Roche dated 29 October 2022
R3
Report of Dr McGree dated 22 July 2022
R4
Report of Dr Roche dated 14 October 2022
R5
Referral letter referral letter of Doctor McGree to Doctor Roche dated 24 June 2022
T4, 13-20
Claim for groin strain
T4, 25
Diagnosis form completed by Dr McGree
T7, 27-29
Permanent impairment report dated 2 May 2022
T8, 36-40
14. Determination: Reject permanent impairment claim for groin strain dated 14 June 2022.
T9, 41-45
Request for reconsideration dated 8 May 2023
T10, 46-51
Reviewable decision dated 21 July 2023
T12, 55-59
List of conditions that have been accepted and rejected under SRCA
T13, 188-189
Service medical records
T13, 192-193
Service medical records
T13, 107
Medical examination report dated 15 July 2000
T13, 111
Medical discharge questionnaire
ST1, 1
Determination accept liability for groin strain dated 15 March 2022
ST5
Email from applicant to respondent dated 10 April 2024
ST6
Email from applicant to respondent dated 19 April 2025
ST7
Email from applicant to respondent dated 23 April 2024
ST8
Email from applicant to respondent dated 24 April 2024
ST11, 278-280
Report from Dr McGree to NDIS 12 Jan 2022
ST14
15. Records produced under summons by Gladstone Physio & Fitness
ST15, 470-509
Patient summary records produced under summons by Port Curtis Medical Centre
ST15, 723-730
Centrelink carer allowance medical report
Findings of Fact
As noted above, the applicant enlisted in the military and suffered a number of left sided groin strains while undertaking basic training. The first was reported on 9 August 1999 as a ‘L/ groin strain slight’. That injury was aggravated on 23 August 1999 and the notes record ‘reaggravation to above L/ groin strain’.[8] The applicant was not rested and re-aggravated the strain again in the afternoon on the same day. It was assessed as a grade 2 sprain. There was a further aggravation on 31 August 1999.[9]
[8] T-Documents, T13, 115.
[9] Ibid, 116.
The applicant was discharged in the year 2000 for reasons unrelated to his left groin strain.
There is no evidence that between discharge and 2021, that the applicant ever complained of symptoms relating to a left groin strain.
The applicant attended for physiotherapy from November 2019. When he began treatment, he never mentioned that he had a groin strain or that he had altered gait due to a groin injury. The applicant did not complain of groin issues until 8 December 2021.[10]
[10] Supplementary T-Documents, ST14, 405.
Similarly, when the applicant commenced with his GP Dr McGree, his complaints concerned his left knee and shoulders. Soon after he commenced seeing Dr McGree on 19 September 2019,[11] he was referred for MRIs of the left knee and both shoulders. In April 2021, the applicant is described by Dr McGree as having ‘hobbled in’. His worst pain is in the neck, shoulders, wrists + ankles’. Complaints about groin pain were notably absent.[12]
[11] Ibid, ST15, 509.
[12] Ibid, 502.
It was not until May 2022 that Dr McGree’s practice recorded any complaints about a left groin strain.[13] On 2 May 2022, Dr McGree prepared a Permanent Impairment Assessment Report.[14]
[13] Ibid, 491-492
[14] T-Documents, T7, 27-35.
At present, the applicant complains of suffering from significant pain in his groin which is affecting his gait. He believes the pain from which he suffers, and the alteration of his gait is the result of the injuries he suffered during basic training. The applicant also has widespread pain throughout his body, the cause of which is uncertain.
Consideration
In order to establish an entitlement to compensation for permanent impairment, the applicant must first establish that the original groin strain ‘results in permanent impairment’. In other words, there needs to be a causal connection between the injury suffered in 1999 and the issues the applicant is suffering from at the moment. On the evidence available, it is not possible to be satisfied that that is the case.
The only supportive report relied upon by the applicant is the report of Dr McGree dated 2 May 2022. The report does not provide a proper basis for concluding that the applicant today is suffering from an impairment as a result of the left groin strains he suffered in 1999.
Dr McGree’s report has a number of deficiencies. First, it is unclear how Dr McGree has linked the injuries in 1999 with the symptoms the applicant is complaining of in 2022. He notes that the applicant is ‘tender over the origin of sartorius bilaterally’ but does not record any history that is consistent with that tenderness having been present continuously since 1999.[15] In response to the question ‘Is Mr Drazinic’s impairment consistent with the diagnosis of groin strain?’ he responds ‘uncertain’.[16]
[15] Ibid, 32.
[16] Ibid, 29.
In relation to the ‘objective testing’ that Dr McGree records in his report, he identifies the applicant as suffering from ‘R Groin Strain’. He describes on multiple occasions the applicant’s gait as follows ‘swings R leg rather than lifting it’.[17] Given that the applicant’s service injury was a left groin strain, these objective signs are inconsistent with any relationship between the service injury and the gait that Dr McGree observed. In cross-examination Dr McGree indicated that he struggled to tell his left from his right. That might be why the report is inconsistent with the service injury, but it is only one explanation, and I am not satisfied that what Dr McGree in fact observed was the applicant swinging his left leg.
[17] Ibid, 32.
The only other medical evidence of relevance comes from Dr Roche. Mr Drazinic and his representative were rightly critical of the briefing of Dr Roche and the reports he prepared in this matter. I do not accept the contention that there was anything corrupt in the way in which Dr Roche’s report was sought, but there were significant deficiencies in how it was obtained. Dr Roche was not briefed with appropriate materials, nor was he briefed in a way that gave him a proper understanding of the legal framework under which the assessment needed to be made. As a result, none of his formal assessments of the degree of permanent impairment have any validity. However, Dr Roche did organise an MRI of the applicant’s pelvis dated 24 October 2022. That scan showed no sign of a chronic or acute tear, nor evidence of tendonitis.[18]
[18] Supplementary T-Documents, ST15, 1097-1099.
As Dr McGree conceded in cross-examination, it is extremely unusual for a soft tissue injury to persist.
In light of this evidence, I am not satisfied that there is any relationship between the symptoms that the applicant is now describing and his groin strain in 1999.
Dr McGree in his report is uncertain of the link and his oral evidence did nothing to re-assure me that he is confident that there is a connection. The objective evidence available suggests that the applicant suffered a minor strain in 1999 which then resolved. I am not satisfied that the pain and gait issues from which the applicant now suffers relate to the 1999 injury. There is evidence that suggests that the issues the applicant is now experiencing are the product of a broader pain condition.[19]
[19] Exhibit R1, 3-7.
Decision
The decision under review is affirmed.
Dates of Hearing 24 October 2024 and 21 March 2025
Applicant’s Representative Ms Catherine Drazinic
Counsel for the Respondent Mr Ben Dube
Respondent’s Solicitor Sparke Helmore
0
0
0