Seizovic and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (General)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) regarding the classification of an applicant's incapacity for civil employment. The applicant, who had served over 24 years in the Royal Australian Navy, was medically discharged in October 2006 due to various physical and psychological impairments. CSC had classified him as Class C, indicating a significant but not total incapacity for civil employment. The applicant sought a review of this classification, arguing that the kinds of civil employment identified by CSC were not reasonably available to him given his qualifications, experience, and medical restrictions.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the applicant's percentage of incapacity in relation to civil employment, and consequently, his classification under section 30 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. This required the Tribunal to consider the applicant's vocational, trade, and professional skills, qualifications, and experience, and then assess the kinds of civil employment he could reasonably undertake, taking into account the extent to which his impairments diminished his capacity for such employment. The Tribunal had to apply the principles established in cases like *Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority v House*, which emphasise a broad approach to identifying "kinds of civil employment" and consider what a hypothetical person with the applicant's attributes might reasonably undertake, even if some further learning or certification was required.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant possessed several engineering diplomas and trade qualifications, he lacked the specific tertiary qualifications and applicable experience to be classified as a mechanical engineer or marine transport professional. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that these roles, particularly in civilian shipping, would require further extensive training and specific certifications, and that his medical restrictions, including limitations on standing and avoiding repetitive upper limb activity, would hinder his ability to perform such duties. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's adjustment disorder and avoidance of stress would make the role of a training officer, despite his experience in training, an unreasonable undertaking. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and determined that the applicant's incapacity fell between 30% and 60%, classifying him as Class B.