Hammal and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hammal against a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) regarding his claim for compensation for spinal canal stenosis. The core dispute revolved around whether this claim constituted a relitigation of a previously determined claim for a "back injury," and if not, whether the spinal canal stenosis was contributed to a significant degree by his military service.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the claim for spinal canal stenosis was the same injury as the previously determined "back injury," and if so, whether the current application was an abuse of process. If it was a separate condition, the Tribunal had to consider if it was secondary to a pre-existing condition for which the MRCC was not liable. Further, if it was a separate and non-secondary condition, the Tribunal needed to ascertain the date of its onset and whether it was contributed to a significant degree by Mr Hammal's military service, ultimately determining the MRCC's liability under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (DRC Act).

The Tribunal reasoned that while spinal canal stenosis could be considered a separate injury from a general "back injury," the critical question was its causal link to military service. Applying the principles from *Canute v Comcare*, the Tribunal noted that compensation was payable if the condition resulted in impairment and was caused by military service. However, the evidence, including reports from Dr Anderson, Dr Hardcastle, and Associate Professor McGill, indicated that the spinal canal stenosis was a degenerative spinal disorder. Despite the concession that spinal canal stenosis might be a separate injury, the Tribunal found that Mr Hammal's condition was not contributed to, to a significant degree, by his military service.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision. Mr Hammal's claim for compensation for spinal canal stenosis was dismissed on the basis that the condition was not significantly contributed to by his military service.