Pudney and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the claim of Mr. Pudney against the Repatriation Commission for a disability pension related to a neck condition. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Pudney's cervical spondylosis was a "defence-caused disease" as defined by the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (VEA).

The AAT was required to determine if the applicant's neck condition, cervical spondylosis, arose out of or was attributable to his defence service, and if the relevant Statement of Principles concerning cervical spondylosis, No 67 of 2014, was satisfied. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the definitions of "trauma" and "clinical onset" within the context of the Statement of Principles and the applicant's evidence of service and injuries.

The Tribunal applied section 70(1) and 70(5) of the VEA, which establish the Commonwealth's liability for defence-caused injuries and diseases. Crucially, section 120B(3) of the VEA mandates that a decision-maker must be reasonably satisfied that a Statement of Principles upholds the contention that the injury or disease is connected to service on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "clinical onset" from *Lees v Repatriation Commission*, which requires a feature or symptom enabling a doctor to diagnose the disease, or a finding on investigation indicative of the disease. The applicant's evidence of a swimming incident in 1976 and an explosion in Germany in 1981 did not satisfy the criteria for "trauma" as defined by the Statement of Principles. Furthermore, the neck injury sustained during a touch football game in 1999, while significant, was not considered to have met the definition of "clinical onset" for cervical spondylosis in a manner that connected it to his defence service under the applicable Statement of Principles.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that section 70(1) of the VEA did not impose liability on the Commonwealth to pay a pension to the applicant in relation to his cervical spondylosis. The decision under review was affirmed.