Parry and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application to review a decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission regarding the applicant's claim for compensation for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant, a former Australian Army member with extensive service including operational deployments, claimed that his IBS was a standalone condition for which he was entitled to compensation. The Commission had denied liability for the condition.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 applied to the applicant's claim, and if so, whether the applicant's IBS or its aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his relevant period of service. The court also considered the applicable test for causation, specifically whether a "material contribution" or "significant contribution" test applied, and whether the applicant's IBS was causally linked to his military service.

The court reasoned that while the applicant's IBS was not in contention, the critical question was the degree of contribution from his service. The court noted that the applicant had also been diagnosed with chronic dysthymia and post-traumatic stress disorder, which were accepted as war-caused injuries under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The respondent argued that medical evidence indicated post-traumatic stress disorder was a cause, but not the sole cause, of the IBS, and that it exacerbated the condition rather than being the sole or primary driver. The court found that the medical evidence did not establish a "stronger causal relationship" between the applicant's relevant service and the IBS, meaning the service was not of "substantial import or much consequence" to the ailment. The court applied the principles from *Comcare v Sahu-Khan* [2007] FCA 15, concluding that the IBS, or its aggravation, was not contributed to in a material degree by the applicant's relevant service.

Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.