Gordy and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim for compensation by Julie-Ann Gordy against the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission for cervical spondylosis. The applicant attributed her condition to a number of events during her football playing career and military service. The Tribunal was required to determine whether any of these described events constituted trauma to the cervical spine of sufficient severity to satisfy the applicable Statement of Principles.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's evidence, which lacked contemporaneous medical support, established on the balance of probabilities that the claimed events caused trauma to her cervical spine as required by the Statement of Principles. The Tribunal noted the beneficial nature of veterans' compensation law, acknowledging that the absence of medical evidence does not automatically defeat a claim. However, it emphasised the necessity for the Tribunal to be satisfied of a connection between the claimed injury and service, requiring an analysis of the veracity of the evidence, particularly when the applicant's account diverged from medical evidence.

The Tribunal found serious misgivings regarding the evidence supporting the applicant's claimed events of trauma. It noted that even accepting the applicant's descriptions, several events did not appear to meet the minimum requirements of the Statement of Principles, specifically concerning the duration of pain following the event. Crucially, none of the events were supported by medical evidence, either contemporaneous or otherwise. The Tribunal considered the lack of records for relatively recent events to be a significant concern that undermined the applicant's claims. The Tribunal concluded that the primary evidence for the discrete events and their aftermath rested solely on the applicant's uncorroborated accounts, which were inconsistent and lacked support from medical professionals she had consulted. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.