O'Bryan and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) to deny liability for the applicant's condition of right medial epicondylitis. The applicant, who served in the Army between 1986 and 2000, claimed that specific training activities, including roping and rappelling, cliff assault and haulage courses, small craft handling, and parachute training, contributed significantly to the onset or exacerbation of his elbow condition. The MRCC had accepted liability for other claimed conditions but denied liability for the right medial epicondylitis.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's ailment of right medial epicondylitis was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his military service, as defined by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. This required the Tribunal to consider the definition of "disease" under the Act, which includes an ailment or aggravation of an ailment contributed to, to a significant degree, by employment, and the various factors that may be taken into account in making such a determination, including the nature of the employment and any other relevant matters affecting the employee's health.

The Tribunal considered evidence from the applicant and Associate Professor Michael Wren, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, alongside extensive documentary evidence. Associate Professor Wren expressed disagreement with a diagnosis of medial epicondylitis, noting that while an initial ultrasound suggested thickening, an MRI scan showed no detectable abnormality. Crucially, Associate Professor Wren observed significant skin calluses on the applicant's hands, indicative of regular, recent, and forceful use of both upper limbs, which he found contrary to the applicant's history. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his failure to report elbow pain during service to be unreliable, given the extensive medical records detailing numerous other complaints he had reported throughout his service, including for comparatively minor issues. The absence of any mention of elbow pain in records from periods when the applicant claimed the condition first arose or was aggravated further undermined his claim.

Based on the evidence, particularly the unchallenged opinion of Associate Professor Wren regarding the clinical signs of upper limb use and the lack of corroborating medical records, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's condition had not been contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the MRCC's reviewable decision.