Hayman and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim by Mr Hayman for compensation for a right shoulder injury, which he alleged was secondary to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The core of the dispute was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear this claim, particularly as the original PTSD claim had been withdrawn and no specific claim for PTSD had been lodged.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review a decision concerning Mr Hayman's shoulder injury, given the procedural history of his PTSD claim. This involved determining the scope of "reviewable decision" as defined under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) and whether a claim for a secondary condition could be considered without a formal, extant claim for the primary condition.

The Tribunal, applying section 64(1) and the definition of "reviewable decision" in section 60(1) of the SRC Act, found that it did have jurisdiction. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from decisions made under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VE Act), which involve different statutory provisions and the concept of a "reasonable hypothesis" for linking conditions to service. The Tribunal also considered the case of *Re Bureau of Meteorology and Comcare and Anor* [2015] AATA 267, which highlighted that a claimant must have lodged a claim that substantially complies with the requirements of section 54 of the SRC Act for compensation to be payable. However, the Tribunal's reasoning suggests that the current matter did not fall foul of this principle in a way that would oust its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Tribunal ordered that it has jurisdiction to hear the application.