McKenzie-Smith and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, McKenzie-Smith, for compensation from the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The central dispute revolved around whether the Applicant had sustained a left ankle injury or an aggravation of a pre-existing injury during the course of his military service. The Applicant contended that his left ankle pain and swelling experienced during his service at Smithfield Camp in January 1972 was a result of his military duties aggravating a fracture sustained approximately three months prior.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if there was a causal relationship between the Applicant's left ankle injury or aggravation and his former military employment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the medical evidence supported the claim that the Applicant's military service caused or aggravated his left ankle condition to a degree that would warrant compensation.

The Tribunal, presided over by D Mitchell M, accepted that the Applicant had suffered a left ankle fracture in September 1971, which was not service-related. While acknowledging the Applicant's experience of pain and swelling during his service at Smithfield Camp and his belief that his duties aggravated the fracture, the Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish this causal link. The contemporaneous medical records from January and February 1972 indicated that the assessing medical practitioners attributed the Applicant's symptoms to the initial fracture and did not connect them to his military service. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between the left ankle injury or aggravation and the Applicant's military service, which was a necessary prerequisite for accepting liability for compensation.