Thomas and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Thomas against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his entitlement to a pension for lumbar spondylosis. Mr Thomas contended that his lumbar spondylosis was a defence-caused condition, arguing that an accepted knee disability prevented him from exercising, leading to obesity, which in turn caused his lower back condition. The appeal was heard by Deputy C Kendall P.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Thomas had established, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal, that his lumbar spondylosis was defence-caused. This required determining if the material before the Tribunal raised a connection between the lumbar spondylosis and Mr Thomas’ service, and if there was a Statement of Principles (SoP) in force that upheld the contention that the lumbar spondylosis was, on the balance of probabilities, connected with that service. Specifically, the court considered SoP No. 63 of 2014, which included factor 6(k) relating to obesity.

Deputy C Kendall P reasoned that Mr Thomas relied on factor 6(k) of SoP No. 63, which requires evidence of being obese for at least ten years within the 25 years before the clinical onset of lumbar spondylosis. While there was no dispute that Mr Thomas rendered eligible defence service and that he had a diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis with a clinical onset in July 2010, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal link between his service and the lumbar spondylosis, particularly concerning the duration and impact of his obesity as a consequence of his accepted knee condition. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the material before it did not support the claim to the required standard of reasonable satisfaction.