Humphreys and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Humphreys against the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission regarding his entitlement to compensation for a bilaterally accepted knee condition. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had sustained a 20% whole person impairment (WPI) to each knee, as assessed under Table 9.5 of the "Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment" (Edition 2.1, Part 2). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine the applicant's WPI for his right and left knees.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had achieved a 20% WPI to his right knee and, separately, to his left knee, in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 9.5 of the relevant Guide. The Commission accepted liability for the applicant's knee conditions and acknowledged that the medical evidence supported a finding of permanent impairment.

The Tribunal considered expert medical evidence from Dr Morgan and Dr Steadman, who provided professional testimony that assisted the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that while Table 9.5 uses objective criteria for assessing WPI, the underlying medical reasons for loss of function can be physiological or a combination of physiological and psychological factors. Crucially, the Tribunal found that provided there is an appropriate professional diagnosis of the underlying medical reasons for the loss of function, a soundly based WPI can be assigned, and that radiographic images alone may not be sufficient for a definitive diagnosis. The Tribunal accepted the medical evidence that the applicant suffered from medial meniscus tears, medial compartment osteoarthritis, and chondromalacia patella in both knees, and that the applicant was genuine in his reported symptoms.

Having regard to all the evidence and the relevant legal principles, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had a 20% WPI impairment to his right and left knees under Table 9.5 of the Guide. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside, and in substitution, it was decided that the applicant had a 20% WPI impairment to each knee.