Tognini and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Tognini against a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) that denied liability for his lumbar spondylosis. Mr Tognini served in the Australian Regular Army between 1965 and 1967. During his service, on 17 February 1967, he sustained an injury when he fell approximately fifteen feet from ropes during a military exercise. Liability was subsequently accepted for a musculoligamentous injury to the neck and cervical spondylosis arising from this incident. Mr Tognini later lodged a claim for lumbar spondylosis, asserting it was contributed to by the 1967 fall. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether Mr Tognini's military service, specifically the fall, had contributed to his lumbar spondylosis to a significant degree.

The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of "significant degree" in the context of the relevant legislation, particularly as Mr Tognini first sought medical treatment for his lumbar condition in 2010, meaning the post-2007 provisions applied. The Tribunal also needed to assess the medical evidence regarding the causation of Mr Tognini's lumbar spondylosis and whether his military service was a contributing factor. This involved evaluating the opinion of the Commission's appointed orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Anthony Cairns, who concluded that Mr Tognini's lumbar spondylosis was a standalone condition, 100% attributable to constitutional, developmental, and degenerative changes acquired after his discharge, with no contribution from his military service.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence linking the 1967 fall to Mr Tognini's lumbar spine and the timing of his first medical treatment for this condition. Dr Cairns' report was given significant weight, as he had reviewed extensive medical and historical evidence and concluded that Mr Tognini's military service did not contribute to his lumbar spondylosis. While Mr Tognini's general practitioner, Dr Veling, suggested that age and previous injury were playing equal parts, Dr Veling did not provide specific details or justification for this opinion, nor did he confirm reviewing Dr Cairns' report. The Tribunal found Dr Cairns' opinion more persuasive due to his comprehensive review of the available history. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Tognini suffered from lumbar spondylosis or that his military employment contributed to its onset to a material degree.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.