Lester and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements) - [2025] ARTA 2258

Lester and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements) [2025] ARTA 2258 (23 October 2025)
Applicant:Peter Lester
Respondent: Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Tribunal Number: 2024/2865, 2024/2056

Tribunal:Senior Member D Thomae
Place:Brisbane
Date:23 October 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review on Tribunal files 2024/2865 and 2024/2056.

................................[SGD]...........................
Statement made on 23 October 2025 at 3:15pm
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – claims for liability for lumbar spondylosis, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, bilateral plantar fasciitis and internal derangement of the knee – date of injury - whether the veteran suffers from a disease as defined under s 5B of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988(Cth) – whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree by the veteran’s service - decisions under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Comcare v Power [2015] FCA 1502
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19
Comcare v Sahu-Khan [2007] FCA 15
Statement of Reasons

INTRODUCTION

On 30 July 2024, the applicant, Mr Lester, made an application for review[1] to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT)[2] of the reviewable decisions made by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) to affirm 2 separate determinations denying liability for ‘bilateral knee osteoarthritis, bilateral planter fasciitis, internal derangement of the knee’[3] and ‘lumbar spondylosis’[4] under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA).
[1] Exhibit R1, T2, p 7.
[2] On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
[3] Matter number 2024/2865
[4] Matter number 2024/2056
Mr Lester gave evidence at the hearing. Dr Simon Journeaux, an orthopaedic surgeon, gave evidence at the hearing.
Mr Lester was self-represented. Ms Madi Rush, solicitor, Sparke Helmore Lawyers, represented the Commission.
The Tribunal admitted into evidence the 2 volume ‘Tender Bundle’ prepared for the hearing as exhibit R1 for volume 1 and exhibit R2 for volume 2.
Mr Lester in his closing submissions also sought to rely on a document provided to the Tribunal 22 July 2025 and the Commission did not object to the Tribunal considering its contents. That document is admitted into evidence as exhibit A1.

ISSUES

The Commission framed the issues before the Tribunal as:[5]
(a)The correct diagnosis for ‘bilateral knee osteoarthritis, bilateral planter fasciitis, internal derangement of the knee’ and ‘lumbar spondylosis’ (the Conditions).
(b)The correct date of injury for each of the Conditions (s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lester and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commissi...

Details

AGLC: Lester and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements) [2025] ARTA 2258
Case: [2025] ARTA 2258
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lester and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the primary dispute concerned the veteran's claims regarding the onset and contribution to his lumbar spondylosis, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, bilateral plantar fasciitis, and internal derangement of the knee. The veteran, Mr. Lester, sought to establish that these conditions were either caused or significantly aggravated by his service in the Army, warranting compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth). The case was adjudicated by the relevant tribunal, which was tasked with determining the factual basis of the veteran's claims and the legal implications of those facts under the relevant statutory provisions.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions concerning the definition of a disease, the date of injury, and the degree to which Mr. Lester's service materially or significantly contributed to his conditions. Specifically, the tribunal had to ascertain whether Mr. Lester's conditions qualified as diseases under section 5B of the DRCA and, if so, whether the conditions were significantly contributed to by his military service. The tribunal also needed to determine the precise dates of injury for each condition, a critical factor in assessing the eligibility for compensation.

Upon reviewing the medical evidence and expert testimonies, the tribunal concluded that Mr. Lester's condition of internal derangement of the knee was subsumed within his bilateral knee osteoarthritis, thereby not constituting a separate compensable condition. For the conditions of bilateral knee osteoarthritis and lumbar spondylosis, the tribunal found that they were not significantly contributed to by Mr. Lester's Army service, affirming the initial decisions under review. Regarding the condition of bilateral plantar fasciitis, the tribunal held that it was not materially contributed to by Mr. Lester's service, thus upholding the second reviewable decision. The tribunal's reasoning was grounded in the medical evidence, particularly the clinical notes and expert opinions, which did not support a significant contribution of the veteran's service to the conditions claimed.

The tribunal's decisions were ultimately affirmed, rejecting Mr. Lester's claims for compensation regarding the specified conditions. The tribunal's careful consideration of the medical evidence and statutory requirements led to the conclusion that Mr. Lester's conditions did not meet the necessary criteria for compensation under the DRCA.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The scope of dispute is in respect to the medical evidence as to the date of injury of the Conditions, subject of Mr Lester’s two applications for review, and whether Mr Lester’s service in the Army ‘materially’ or ‘significantly’ contributed to the Conditions.Medical Evidence A partially redacted clinical note dated 31 January 1990, states ‘Ptx dislocated R patella ++ on playing sport for many years.’[27][27] Exhibit R2, p 104. On 25 April 1990, Dr Garry Lane, a physician in general medicine, provided a letter that relevantly states ‘his lowest weight was 12 stone while in the Army. His more recent stable weight was 14 stone. His weight has increased dramatically over the last few months because he has found that his chest pain is always relieved by food as well as antacids’.[28][28] Exhibit R1, ST1, p 455. A partially redacted clinical note dated 17 November 1992, states[29] ‘4 days ago had to catch heavy bale at work ’→ progressively ↑(increasing) R lower backache since O/E Obese +++ (significant) Tender over R S-1 joint (sacral) Pain ++ on flex (flexion), lat flex (lateral flexion) → L (rotation).’[30][29] As interpreted by Dr Journeaux during oral evidence.[30] Exhibit R2, p 96. A partially redacted clinical note dated 12 January 2000, states[31] ‘Acute back strain in shower at 0700 140/85 BP (complaining of pain) scapula to lumbar area (right sided) Rad spine NAD tender muscles laterally T5 to L2 area’[32][31] As interpreted by Dr Journeaux during oral evidence.[32] Exhibit R2, p 97. A partially redacted clinical note dated 24 April 2001, states[33] ‘2 months R Plantar fasciitis p, gen (general) advice onset after new Blundstones’.[34][33] As interpreted by Dr Journeaux during oral evidence.[34] Exhibit R2, p 80. A partially redacted clinical note with an unreadable date state[35] ‘complaining of 2/52 week history of pain, left foot intermittent, on examination mild tenderness over medial and proximal left planar arch, flattish, diagnosis query gout, query plantar fasciitis’.[36][35] As interpreted by Dr Journeaux during oral evidence.[36] Exhibit R2, p 79. On 8 January 2003, Dr Soo Wei Foo, a respiratory registrar, reviewed Mr Lester in respect to his pulmonary embolism treatment and wrote a letter that relevantly states ‘However he did gain a significant amount of weight of approximately 40kg in the past 1 year’.[37][37] Exhibit R1, ST1, p 456. A surgery consultation recorded by a Dr Ian Heyman, dated 11 March 2003, states[38] ‘Several days pain medial border R foot (tender+ over navicular) – no trauma. ? gout - ? other cause.’[39][38] As interpreted by Dr Journeaux during oral evidence.[39] Exhibit R2, p 81. A surgery consultation recorded by a Dr Graham Jacobs, dated 3 December 2003, states ‘Letter written – re. second opinion. To PROF GEOFFREY DONNAN. Patient Education Leaflet – Plantar fasciitis printed.’[40][40] Exhibit R2, p 82. A surgery consultation recorded by a Dr Kathryn O’Connor, dated 24 September 2006, states ‘last wed spontaneous pain in knee and behind, hurts to walk slipped kneecap 10 years ago but diff type of pain.’[41][41] Exhibit R2, p 87.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Tribunal has found that:(a)Mr Lester’s condition of ‘internal derangement of the knee’ has been subsumed into his condition of bilateral knee osteoarthritis’ and is not a stand-alone compensable condition under the DRCA.(b)Mr Lester’s conditions of ‘bilateral knee osteoarthritis’ (date of injury 2 January 2019) and ‘lumbar spondylosis’ (date of injury 3 April 2023) were not significantly contributed to by Mr Lester’s Army service pursuant to s 5B of the DRCA, and the First Reviewable Decision must be affirmed.(c)Mr Lester’s condition of ‘bilateral plantar fasciitis’ (date of injury 2003) was not materially contributed to by Mr Lester’s Army service pursuant to s 4(1) of the DRCA as then enacted, and the Second Reviewable Decision must be affirmed.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review (2024/2865 and 2024/2056).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In re-examination of Dr Journeaux, Ms Rush asked Dr Journeaux:(a)To confirm that if Mr Lester did not have flat feet at the time of his enlistment then that could have occurred because of ageing to which Dr Journeaux agreed.(b)If feet could age in 7 months to have the condition of flat feet to which Dr Journeaux said no.(c)If the flat feet condition is constitutional or congenital and wearing boots that could cause pain, if that was the case, once Mr Lester stopped wearing the boots would there be any ongoing contribution to the flat feet condition from wearing those boots to which Dr Journeaux did not believe so and give the short period of time Mr Lester was in the Army, the contribution would be short lived and transitory as an exacerbation rather than as an aggravation.(d)When you accepted that the flat foot condition could be a predisposing factor for plantar fasciitis, were you saying that there was a link between the plantar fasciitis and the service, to which Dr Journeaux said no and any contribution at Kapooka or IET’s would have caused maybe some foot strain symptoms rather than any contribution to any later conditions. CONTENTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONDiagnosis and date of injury of the Conditions The High Court in Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19 at [49] explained that the first task the Tribunal must undertake under the SRC Act (the DRCA is relevantly on the same terms) is to consider the facts to determine if the employee is suffering a ‘disease’ or an ‘injury’.Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis, Bilateral Planter Fasciitis and Lumbar Spondylosis The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that Mr Lester has the conditions ‘bilateral knee osteoarthritis, bilateral planter fasciitis and ‘lumbar spondylosis’, and such conditions are each a disease within the meaning of s 5B of the DRCA because of the uncontroversial medical evidence of Dr Journeaux, an orthopaedic surgeon.[52][52] Exhibit R2, p 151. The parties in closing submissions agreed, and the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied, that the date of injury, pursuant to 7(4) of the DRCA, for the condition:(a)‘bilateral knee osteoarthritis’ is 2 January 2019, because that is the date which medical imaging first provided that diagnosis.[53](b)‘lumbar spondylosis’ is 3 April 2023, because that is the date which medical imaging first provided that diagnosis.[54][53] Exhibit R2, p 143; Exhibit R1, p 52. [54] Exhibit R1, p 52. In respect of the date of injury (clinical onset) of Mr Lester’s ‘bilateral planter fasciitis’:(a)Mr Lester contends that it is June 1972 because of his medical records from his time in the Army disclose diagnosis and treatment for his feet consistent with the condition. (b)Dr Journeaux in his expert report says it is 2 January 2019 but conceded during his oral evidence that it was likely to be around 2003. The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the date of injury of Mr Lester’s ‘bilateral planter fasciitis’ is 2003 because the clinical notes around that date disclose Mr Lester seeking treatment for the condition and Dr Journeaux on reviewing those clinical notes during his evidence conceded that around 2003 was an appropriate date for the injury and the Tribunal accepted Dr Journeaux’s opinion. Internal Derangement of the Knee