Larter and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Larter against a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) affirming a previous decision that he was not entitled to compensation for his cervical spine condition. Mr Larter claimed that his myofascial strain of the cervical spine and cervical spondylosis were aggravated by his military service. The dispute centred on whether the symptoms or signs of his condition were materially contributed to by his service, even if the underlying condition itself had not been permanently worsened.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the application of section 30 of the *Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004* (MRCA). This section deals with liability for conditions where the signs or symptoms have been materially contributed to by service, irrespective of whether the underlying disease itself has been permanently worsened. The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Larter's service had materially contributed to the aggravation of his cervical spine condition.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding an incident in August 2004 where Mr Larter fell while carrying a heavy piece of equipment, reporting neck pain at the time. However, the Tribunal noted a lack of consistent medical evidence linking this incident to an aggravation of his cervical condition. Medical reports from various specialists, including Dr Cardwell, Dr Powers, Mr Vaughan, and Dr Gee, did not clearly establish a causal link or significant aggravation stemming from the fall. Furthermore, Mr Larter did not consistently mention the fall in subsequent medical consultations or in his compensation claim. The Tribunal found that while the incident occurred, there was insufficient evidence to establish that it materially contributed to the aggravation of his cervical spondylosis or myofascial strain, as required by section 30 of the MRCA.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the MRCC's decision, finding that the criteria for establishing liability under section 30 of the MRCA were not met. The decision under review was therefore upheld.