Perren and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mr Perren against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his entitlement to a pension for lumbar and thoracic spondylosis. Mr Perren served in the Royal Australian Navy between 1975 and 1984, and his service was classified as eligible defence service. The dispute centred on whether his conditions were defence-caused, which required him to satisfy specific criteria outlined in Statements of Principles (SoPs) determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr Perren's claimed conditions of lumbar and thoracic spondylosis arose out of, or were attributable to, his defence service, as defined by the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986. This required the Tribunal to apply the relevant SoPs, specifically SoP No 63 of 2014 for lumbar spondylosis and SoP No 65 of 2014 for thoracic spondylosis, or, if more beneficial, the SoPs in force at the time of the original decision, being No 38 of 2005 and No 36 of 2005 respectively. The Tribunal was required to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the criteria within the applicable SoPs were met.

The Tribunal considered Mr Perren's submissions, which relied on factors involving the lifting or carrying of loads of at least 35 kilograms to a cumulative total of at least 168,000 kilograms within any ten-year period before the clinical onset of his conditions. The Tribunal noted that Mr Perren's own calculations of his lifting during a nominated period fell only slightly above the required threshold. Upon examining the evidence, particularly concerning the lifting of communication cables, the Tribunal found that Mr Perren's participation in this task was not as extensive as claimed. Even accepting that the task occurred at 56 ports and involved significant weight, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Perren's role, especially after his promotion, and the availability of other sailors meant he did not consistently participate in this task at every port. Consequently, his total estimated lifts fell below the 168,000-kilogram threshold. The Tribunal also considered earlier SoPs but found that Mr Perren did not satisfy the criteria under those either.

For the reasons outlined, the Tribunal found that Mr Perren did not satisfy the criteria under either the current SoPs or those in place at the time of the original decision. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.