Morris and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation under the *Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004* (Cth) by an applicant who claimed to suffer from ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome connected to his peacetime service in the Australian Defence Force. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Respondent) was the opposing party. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's condition was service-related.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant suffered from ulcerative colitis, which Statement of Principles (SoP) was applicable, the date of the clinical onset of the condition, and whether the applicant met the criteria within the relevant SoP to establish a connection between his ulcerative colitis and his military service. The parties agreed that the applicable SoP was SoP 20 of 2012 concerning Inflammatory Bowel Disease, which includes ulcerative colitis. The specific factor in contention was subclause 6(d) of the SoP, which requires that the applicant was treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for at least seven days before the clinical onset of the inflammatory bowel disease.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "clinical onset" as established in Federal Court jurisprudence, which refers to either the point at which a person becomes aware of symptoms indicative of the disease to a doctor, or when an investigation yields a finding indicative of the disease to a doctor. The applicant contended that he first became aware of symptoms in late August 2012. However, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding the onset date, with one document stating 28 September 2012 and another late September 2012. Crucially, the contemporaneous medical records, including reports from a dietitian between January and March 2013, did not mention any bowel issues. The first mention of bowel problems in the medical history appeared on 15 March 2013. The Tribunal found that the absence of any mention of these symptoms in the dietitian's reports suggested she was unaware of them, and that the applicant's own statements and the lack of earlier medical documentation did not establish the clinical onset of his condition before 15 March 2013.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.