Parker and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Parker for compensation from the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission for several claimed conditions, including a deviated nasal septum, sleep apnoea, and ear conditions such as otitis media and bilateral tinnitus. The dispute centred on whether the Commission was liable to pay compensation for these conditions, which Mr Parker alleged were related to his former military service. The decision was made by Senior Member T. Tavoularis.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had complied with the notice and claim requirements stipulated by section 16 of the *1930 Act*, and if not, whether the Respondent had suffered prejudice as a result of the delay in providing notice. Further, the Tribunal was required to determine if there was sufficient evidence to substantiate a diagnosis of each claimed condition and to establish a causal connection between those conditions and the Applicant's military employment.

The Tribunal considered the requirements of section 16 of the *1930 Act*, which mandates that notice of an accident be given as soon as practicable and a claim for compensation be made within six months of the accident. The Applicant contended that seeking medical treatment during service constituted timely notice, but the Tribunal found that the medical records upon discharge only indicated minor ailments, not those currently claimed. For the deviated nasal septum, sleep apnoea, and ear conditions, the Tribunal found that the notice and claim requirements of section 16 were not met, and the Applicant did not fall within any proviso to that section. Consequently, these claims were not to be considered by the Respondent. Even if the conditions were diagnosed, the Tribunal found no reliable or compelling evidence to support a causal relationship between them and the Applicant's military service.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had no liability to pay compensation for any of the claimed conditions due to insufficient evidence and non-compliance with statutory notice requirements. The decisions under review were affirmed.