Stephens and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)
[2025] ARTA 1919
•29 September 2025
Stephens and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 1919 (29 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Tracy Stephens
Respondent: Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Tribunal Number: 2024/3911
Tribunal:Senior Member A. George
Place:Darwin
Date:29 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 29 September 2025 at 2:10pm
........................................................................
Senior Member A. George
Catchwords
VETERANS – whether compensation payable – whether claimed conditions contributed to by service – date of onset of claimed conditions – bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism – bilateral presbyopia – decision affirmed
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988Statement of Reasons
Ms Stephens served in the Australian Army for five years from August 1988. She has made a claim of liability to pay compensation for poor eyesight under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA). Ms Stephens contends that her poor eyesight was caused by, or contributed to, her military service.
The legal framework for claims for compensation made under s 14 of the DRCA is well established. It need not be recited. It is sufficient to state that the issues before the Tribunal are as follows:
(a)What is the correct diagnosis of Ms Stephens’ claimed conditions?
(b)What is the date of onset of Ms Stephens’ claimed conditions?
(c)Were Ms Stephens’ claimed conditions contributed to, to the requisite degree, by her service?
(d)Is compensation payable to Ms Stephens?
Other issues regarding a shoulder injury and the incorrect granting of a pension to Ms Stephens have been raised by her advocate. A significant overpayment amount was waived on 23 April 2020. The Tribunal confirms that these matters fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as they do not arise out of the decision under review of 4 November 2022. They are not considered further.
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
MATERIAL FACTS
Ms Stephens’ eyesight was described as normal in her Entry Medical Examination Record when she enlisted in the Army. She was in reasonable health.
In a statutory declaration made in June 2020, Ms Stephens described her service as an Orderly Room Clerk. Ms Stephens described how she suffered headaches, migraines and diminishing eyesight. Upon complaint, adjustments were made to Ms Stephens’ computer monitor to reduce glare. Her desk was moved from the window. The fluorescent lighting was modified.
Ms Stephens has provided several accounts, which are contained in the Hearing Book at Exhibit R2 and her material at Exhibit A1. These are to the effect that she joined the Army with great eyesight and did not require glasses and that she was only afflicted by headaches and dizziness after joining. Ms Stephens has also said that she attended the Regimental Aid Post on several occasions.
Ms Stephens’ medical records note that she was seeking treatment for headaches and photophobia by October 1989. Nevertheless, her eyes were still described as normal.
By 17 January 1990, Ms Stephens was seeking treatment for dizziness and blurred vision whilst reading. Her medical records report that she was having trouble focusing on television, although during the hearing Ms Stephens’ advocate clarified that it was computer screens upon which Ms Stephens had difficulty focusing.
In January 1990, the Army issued Ms Stephens a prescription for one pair of spectacles.
After lodging her claim for poor eyesight in April 2020, Ms Stephens was examined ophthalmologist Dr Raja. The referral to Dr Raja from Dr Buttsworth on 19 June 2020 indicates that Ms Stephens suffers from several medical conditions and takes various medications. Dr Raja did not provide a report.
Subsequently, Ms Stephens consulted ophthalmologist Dr Richardson. He wrote a report in approximately June 2020 that was shared with the Respondent in September 2020. Materially, in Exhibit R2 at T12/105, Dr Richardson passed the following opinion:
I found that Tracy had good visions of 6/4 part unaided in each eye. She does have a very small amount of myopic astigmatism which she has corrected in her present glasses. She is now 49 and needs reading assistance and this is quite consistent with her age. The anterior segments were quiet with normal pressures. I dilated the pupils and found healthy optic discs and retina. An OCT was performed which showed a normal retinal profile.
In summary I cannot find any ocular pathology. Other than some age-related presbyopia I could reassure her. There certainly is no evidence that there was any damage to her eyes as a young entrant into the armed forces 30 years earlier.
The opinion contained in this final sentence by Dr Richardson is made in conclusive terms, uncontradicted by any other clinical evidence before the Tribunal.
There are other documents before the Tribunal, amounting to hundreds of pages. Many of these are not relevant, including documents relating to motor vehicles accidents. Other documents, such as from the Contracted Medical Advisor and optician Mr Shah, have been considered by the Tribunal but are not considered to be material given Dr Richardson’s opinion.
ISSUES
What is the correct diagnosis of the claimed conditions?
It is uncontentious that the correct diagnosis of the claimed conditions is bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism and bilateral presbyopia, as confirmed by Dr Richardson. It is uncontentious that these claimed conditions are ailments within the disease provisions of the DRCA.
For completeness, the Tribunal notes the grounds for merits review stated in Ms Stephens’ application of 13 June 2024. This stated that ‘poor eyesight’ should be considered regardless of the diagnosable condition. The Tribunal is not satisfied that poor eyesight is an ailment, or a disease, under s 5B of the DRCA but rather that poor eyesight is symptomatic of such an ailment or ailments.
Conclusion: claimed conditions
Ms Stephens is suffering from bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism and bilateral presbyopia.
What is the date of onset of the claimed conditions?
It is uncontentious that date of onset of Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism was 17 January 1990.
The Respondent has contended that the date of onset of Ms Stephens’ bilateral presbyopia is 19 June 2020, when she received the referral from Dr Buttsworth to Dr Raja. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant’s submissions that a diagnosis in 2020 is inconsequential given Ms Stephens’ history of poor eyesight, however that submission is contrary to Dr Richardson’s opinion that Ms Stephen’s presbyopia is age-related. It therefore does not flow that the date of onset of Ms Stephens’ bilateral presbyopia was in 1990 when she was a teenager. Rather, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the date of onset was the date of Dr Buttsworth’s referral on 19 June 2020.
Conclusion
The date of onset of Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism was 17 January 1990. The date of onset of Ms Stephens’ bilateral presbyopia was 19 June 2020.
Were the claimed conditions contributed to, to the requisite degree, by Ms Stephens’ service?
Given changes made to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 that took effect in 2007, different requisite degrees of contribution apply to Ms Stephens’ claimed conditions in assessing their relationship to service. It is unnecessary to recite the legislative history of s 4(1) and s 5B of the DRCA. It is sufficient to note that the requisite degree of contribution applicable to Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism is ‘material’ and the requisite degree of contribution applicable to Ms Stephens’ bilateral presbyopia is ‘significant’. For the reasons that follow, however, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Ms Stephens’ claimed conditions were contributed to in any way by her service.
Ms Stephens served in the Australian Army for five years from August 1988 in predominantly clerical roles. She was a teenager when she joined and in reasonable health.
The Tribunal readily acknowledges the vicissitudes of service life and that service as a clerk in a disciplined organisation such as the Army is of a different nature, and has different demands, than most clerical roles elsewhere. It includes deploying on exercises such as Ex KANGAROO 89 and, at times, being subject to levels of environmental hardship both in the field and in barracks. Nevertheless, Ms Stephens’ service was routine for a peacetime Army. Where complaints were made about lighting, for example, adjustments could be made and indeed were made.
The date of onset of Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism is contemporaneous with her service. Contemporaneity, however, must not be confused with causation or contribution. That the Army provided Ms Stephens with a prescription for spectacles cannot now be logically read as acceptance for liability for materially contributing to her bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism, or indeed contributing to any condition related to poor eyesight.
Dr Richardson’s medical opinion is clear that there is no evidence of any contribution to Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism arising from her military service. The Tribunal places overwhelming weight on this opinion. Similarly, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied from Dr Richardson’s opinion that Ms Stephens’ bilateral presbyopia is age-related. Neither claimed condition was therefore caused, or contributed to, in any way, by Ms Stephens’ service.
Conclusion
Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism and bilateral presbyopia were not caused, or contributed to, in any way, by her service.
Is compensation payable to Ms Stephens?
Where Ms Stephens’ bilateral hypermetropic astigmatism and bilateral presbyopia were not contributed to by her service, to the requisite degree, compensation is not payable under s 14 of the DRCA.
Conclusion
Compensation is not payable to Ms Stephens.
CONCLUSION
Given the findings made above, the only decision available to the Tribunal is to affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding thirty (30) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member George
............................[Sgnd]...................................
Feng J, Associate
Dates of hearing: 15 September 2025 Advocate for the Applicant: Mr D A.T. Beacham, Eastern Regional RSL Sub Branch WA Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr B Dubé, Sparke Helmore Lawyers
0
0
0