Green and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Repatriation Commission concerning a claim for a disability pension by the Applicant, Mr. Green. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant's trigeminal neuropathy was related to his defence service. The Applicant contended that the condition arose from surgery performed to remove a basal cell carcinoma from his right temple, a condition accepted as service-related.

The Tribunal was required to determine if there was a causal connection between the Applicant's trigeminal neuropathy and his defence service, specifically whether the surgery for the basal cell carcinoma caused or contributed to the neuropathy. This involved assessing whether the material before the Tribunal raised a connection between the condition and the Applicant's service, and if so, whether that connection was established on the balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal considered conflicting expert evidence. Dr. du Plessis opined that post-surgery, there was no evidence of nerve deficit in the surgical area and that the neuropathy originated deep within the head at the trigeminal nerve root exit from the brainstem, not from the skin surgery. In contrast, Dr. Todman suggested that the surgery, involving cutting through skin and terminal nerve endings, could plausibly have disturbed parts of the trigeminal nerve, leading to irritability. However, the Tribunal found that Dr. du Plessis's evidence indicated no nerve deficit in the surgical area after healing and identified the pathology as originating internally, away from the surgical site.

Applying the principles from *Repatriation Commission v Money*, the Tribunal found that the evidence, particularly Dr. du Plessis's assessment, did not raise a connection between the Applicant's trigeminal neuropathy and his defence service. Consequently, the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirement under section 120B(3)(a) of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth) that a connection be raised. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the Repatriation Commission's decision that the Applicant's trigeminal neuropathy was not a defence-caused injury or disease.