Ducat and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Ducat against a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission regarding his claim for compensation for bilateral knee osteoarthritis. The central dispute was whether Mr. Ducat's service in the Australian Army had contributed to his condition in a material degree, as required by section 5B of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (DRC Act). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining this issue.

The Tribunal was required to assess whether Mr. Ducat's arduous work during his Army service constituted a material contribution to the onset of his bilateral knee osteoarthritis. This involved interpreting the meaning of "in a material degree" within the context of the DRC Act, and considering whether the condition was a "disease" for the purposes of compensation. The Tribunal also had to evaluate the evidence presented, including Mr. Ducat's own testimony about his work and symptoms, the medical certificate from his General Practitioner, Dr. Williams, and the expert opinion of Dr. Gray.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr. Ducat had indeed performed heavy work during his Army service, this activity in a fit young man with normal joints was generally considered beneficial for joint health rather than detrimental. The Tribunal found that there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence to support the claim that Mr. Ducat suffered from knee symptoms during his service or shortly thereafter. The earliest recorded evidence of knee symptoms, bilateral knee pain suggestive of osteoarthritis, appeared in 2002, significantly later than his Army service. Dr. Williams' opinion that the condition was chronic by 1987 was not supported by his own practice records. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Ducat's bilateral knee osteoarthritis was not a "disease" for the purposes of section 5B of the DRC Act, as it had not been materially contributed to by his Army service.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr. Ducat was not entitled to compensation under section 14 of the DRC Act.