Larsen and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Larsen, for compensation for cervical spondylosis and thoracic spondylosis, which he claimed arose out of his employment with the Australian Defence Force. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) had affirmed decisions to deny compensation for these conditions. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant's claimed conditions constituted an injury for which the MRCC was liable to pay compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Defence-related Claims) 1988* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's cervical spondylosis and thoracic spondylosis were injuries that arose out of, or were contributed to to a significant degree by, his employment. The Tribunal also considered whether certain incidents, including a claimed cargo net incident and pallet jack incident, caused these conditions or aggravated any pre-existing injuries or ailments. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence, including medical reports and the applicant's own statements, to determine the cause of the applicant's conditions on the balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimed incidents, specifically the cargo net incident, had occurred. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of medical experts, Dr Gallie and Dr Steadman, who opined that the applicant's cervical spondylosis and thoracic spondylosis were the result of constitutional and degenerative changes, rather than a traumatic injury or event related to his employment. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that his conditions were an injury suffered out of, or in the course of, his employment, nor that his employment had contributed to them to a significant degree. The Tribunal also noted that as it was not satisfied the incidents occurred, they could not have caused an aggravation of any existing injury or ailment.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, meaning that the applicant's claims for compensation for cervical spondylosis and thoracic spondylosis were dismissed.