Wallace and Comcare
[2003] AATA 444
•16 May 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 444
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2001/784
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re SCOTT RAYMOND WALLACE Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms J Cowdroy, Member Date16 May 2003
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ...................(Sgd)......................
Ms J Cowdroy
Member
CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – back injury – whether applicant suffered an injury in the course of his employment – liability - whether compensation is payable
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
REASONS FOR DECISION
16 May 2003 Ms J Cowdroy, Member Background
1. This matter concerns review of a decision of a delegate of Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service dated 16 August 2001 which affirmed a decision dated 29 September 1999 that the applicant did not suffer a back condition during the course of his employment and denied liability to pay compensation.
Hearing
2. The matter was heard on 17 and 18 January 2003. Mr B Hume appeared for the applicant and Mr C Clark for the respondent. Pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the T-documents were accepted into evidence as E1, together with documents forming exhibits E2-E18. The matter was decided on the basis of the exhibits, the oral evidence of the witnesses and the submissions of counsel.
Evidence
3. The applicant gave evidence. He enlisted in the Army on 12 June 1990 and did his initial training at Wagga, New South Wales. He spent about three months at the School of Infantry at Singleton, New South Wales and, in April 1991, attended parachute training school at Nowra, New South Wales for 2½ weeks. He had requested to be posted to 3 RAR, and parachuting qualifications were a prerequisite to attachment to that regiment. According to his parachute log card (exhibit E5), the applicant completed eight jumps between 10 April 1991 and 16 April 1991.
4. On 16 April 1991, he jumped from 1500 ft with a steerable parachute, known as MC-1. After jumping from the plane, he noticed that the steering flares were gathered and although he tugged on the rises to free the canopy, he could not untangle it. At this point, he was descending at a slower rate than other parachutists around him. He had very limited ability to steer the chute, but by pulling on the rises he was able to make a slow descent. When he was at a height of about two or three stories from the ground, his speed of descent increased to the point where he was “free falling”. At one point, he was headed towards a barbed wire fence and vehicles in the drop zone area.
5. He hit the ground with his feet and knees, on to his shoulders, somersaulting forward and ultimately landing on his back. The ground crew helped him unclip his chute and enquired about his welfare. He was stiff and sore in the ankles, knees, back, shoulders and neck, with some soreness in his feet, but otherwise appeared unharmed. He explained that, in a normal landing, one would come down at an angle and roll sideways. However, because he could not steer the canopy adequately, it was travelling against the wind, with the result that he was facing forward and he went though the rises.
6. Upon landing, he spoke to his Commanding Officer and Warrant Officer McCloskey, who recorded details of the incident. Warrant Officer McCloskey took some notes while leaning against a bonnet of a Land Rover. He explained to them that he had not used his reserve chute as he considered it was not necessary. He was informed that because of the malfunction, that jump had to be disregarded for the purpose of obtaining his parachuting qualification. He jumped again later that day, without incident.
7. On 17 April 1991, he completed part of an incident report in the orderly room. That document appears at T5-104 and it is his handwriting which appears under the heading “7. Statement by Paratrooper”. It states: “exited aircraft inspected canopy did all round observation. Rate of descent did not increase did not carry out emergency drills, landed safely”. The notation “landed safely”, to his way of thinking, meant that he had not suffered any “broken bones”.
8. He subsequently contracted asthma and was informed that unless he could transfer to another corp, his career in the Army was “over”.. He transferred to the catering corp and requalified as a cook at Puckapunyal. He remained in the catering corp for three-four years. It was during this period that he started to notice problems with his knees, back and neck. Initially, he had thought the pain and stiffness in those areas were attributable to the “rigours of Army life”.. However, by the time of his transfer to Mosman, in New South Wales, the symptoms had increased in intensity and he consulted a medical practitioner for treatment. He believed that his symptoms were aggravated at Mosman due to going down steep steps.
9. The applicant acknowledged that there were numerous presentations for medical treatment in which he had the opportunity to raise the topic of treatment for his back pain. His response was that after his complaints had been brushed off by a variety of medical practitioners, including those at Mosman and Brisbane, he self-treated with analgesics, as that was the only treatment ever offered.. Whenever he attended the RAP, he was given Panadol and Dispirin; in some periods, he was taking one or two Panadol, up to four times per day. He told the doctor at Mosman that he considered the symptoms were attributable to the parachute incident. However, the doctor expressed the view that, given the time that had elapsed, the pain was more likely to be due to the nature of his duties, which encompassed considerable standing and lifting.
10. Because of medical problems he was having in the catering corps, he transferred to engineers. Between 1996-1997, he spent three or four months at Moorebank, New South Wales and was then posted to 21 Construction Co Brisbane, where he was a driver of heavy vehicles. He experienced problems with his back in this occupation, as it was very sore after changing tyres, when driving distances and when carrying out maintenance duties. He also experienced a stiff neck when driving vehicles.
11. After discharge, he underwent surgery for a double hernia, and after a period of convalescence, he received approval to undertake home study to obtain handyman qualifications. However, approval was subsequently withdrawn due to his non-apprentice status. He undertook a couple of web design courses but he found the steps at the college difficult to traverse. Ultimately he obtained employment at the Office of Fair Trading in desktop publishing duties. However, he had to relinquish that work after a couple of months due to pain after sitting for two to three hours at a time. He had been provided with aids by MCRS in the way of an ergonomic desk and chair, monitor and document stands.
12. In cross-examination, Mr Wallace indicated that the jump in which he was injured is not recorded in his jump record, as only qualifying jumps are recorded. When he was challenged as to the reason he had not included in the report of the incident that there had been a “free fall" or mentioned it in his written statement (which forms exhibit E6), he responded that he had been asked by his solicitors to give a broad outline of events. What he had provided was a rough summary, expressed in his own terms.
13. The applicant was also questioned in respect to the lack of any reference in the incident report to the rate of descent increasing. He said that report contained information which he had been told by others to write. He was questioned about medical board examination records for 1991 to 1993 which all record his back as “normal”.. He pointed out that on some of the medical attendance records his back is recorded as “abnormal” (T4-50 and 51). Given he has kyphoscoliosis in the lower thoracic spine, the notations which record his back as normal are not correct. There were also attendances for physiotherapy treatment to his back, however, the incident with the parachute is not mentioned. The applicant pointed out that at T4-22 there is a comment “long history of painful knees and back”, however that comment was recorded after he had lodged his claim for compensation.
14. He acknowledged that he consulted Army doctors fairly persistently in relation to his groin problem. However, he did not seek regular treatment for his back symptoms, as he was young and eager. He thought it was just niggling pain which was the result of intense physical activity and he learned to live with it.
15. The absence of any comment by Dr North indicating knowledge of a free fall was not necessarily indicative that he failed to divulge this to Dr North, pointing out that doctors do not systematically record every comment of a patient. In fact, much of the information recorded by Dr North had been derived from other sources. Similarly, he did not discuss his back condition when he consulted Dr P Boys on 17 June 1996, as the consultation was specifically in relation to his knees.
16. The applicant was able to undertake basic fitness tests up until 1997 and he was placed on restrictions in the last two years before discharge. His “PES” (in his medical board examinations) changed dramatically during the course of his service from “fit everywhere” (FE) to “home only” (HO).
17. By 1994, he had “had enough” of doctors attributing his back pain to his work. On 22 February 1996, he lodged a claim in respect to his knees, however his back was not the subject of a claim. The applicant believed his back condition was covered for compensation and when he realised that was not the case, he lodged his claim in 1999.
18. Dr White, orthopaedic surgeon, gave evidence. The applicant consulted him in respect to his knees and back on 4 May 1999. He did not take detailed notes of the incident said to have caused the injuries, other than the fact the applicant reported being injured in a parachute accident but then carried out another jump. In relation to his back, he reported feeling sore in his whole back area following the first jump and that he sought treatment a couple of years later. He stated that the applicant had about a one-quarter limitation in flexion. He acknowledged that limitation in movement is a matter that is under the voluntary control of the patient, as is the ability to demonstrate straight leg raising.
19. Scoliosis was detected on x-ray, which is a congenital abnormality that is not significant. His diagnosis of chronic musculo-ligamentous strain is based on the applicant’s history and presentation. He pointed out that the term “strain” is not strictly speaking a medical diagnosis and it is generally not detectable on radiological evidence such as plain x-rays. Strains can sometimes be detected by MRI scans, which the applicant has not undergone. However, if disc bulges and annular problems had been detected, he would have viewed the complaint as a more significant one.
20. Given the ongoing symptomatology, he considered it unusual that medical attention was not sought earlier, however he acknowledged that young people frequently put up with ongoing pain without seeking treatment. He expressed concern at the contention that the applicant had been taking up to eight Panadol daily. He believed that the condition would disable the applicant from engaging in heavy occupations. On an historical basis, he considered there would appear to be a causal link between the parachute jump and the back condition.
21. Mr Bruce Morgan, an occupational therapist for the past eight years in private practice, gave evidence. He related his experience in treating soft tissue injuries, rehabilitation and medico-legal assessments. He holds a particular interest in the functional aspects of soft tissue injuries, which are not always visible on plain x-ray.
22. Mr Wallace consulted him on 1 August 2002. He carried out a functional assessment. In respect to mobility, he observed that Mr Wallace began fairly slowly and he struggled to maintain a steady pace. His gait became more laboured as time went on. He was strongly reliant on the stair rails after walking. He recorded the applicant’s problems with washing up, which created postural pain and the difficulties involved in shopping, with standing or stopping, and carrying weights for short periods and short distances.
23. Mr Wallace reported pain in his right low back muscles and, upon palpation, he found the muscles were stiff and tight. He was able to lift less than would be expected of a healthy person of the same age. He felt that the applicant was consistent in his reporting of symptoms. His scores in the spinal function assessment, which involves the capacity to perform specified tasks, rated in the sedentary range.
24. There was also some impact on the applicant’s walking ability caused by groin pain, although it was difficult to assess its contribution. He considered the impairment was permanent, although the applicant’s condition could improve with an active program of fitness and strengthening activities. However, he did not expect there to be full recovery, based on the applicant’s long history of symptoms.
25. In cross-examination, Mr Morgan stated the applicant informed him that there was a parachute malfunction, a slow descent and heavy landing. He did not recall anything being said about the rate of descent increasing.
26. Dr John North, orthopaedic surgeon gave evidence in relation to a report he provided dated 5 March 2002. He took a history from the applicant and conducted an examination. He considered the applicant had a very slight scoliosis, which is a naturally occurring condition. He found no evidence of any soft tissue injury or ligamentous strain injury. He considered there was no evidence of any pathology that could be related to the incident on 16 April 1991. He noted that the applicant had well-developed thighs and calves, which he considered would not have built up without serious exercise.
27. The applicant’s present complaint of symptoms is inconsistent with a soft tissue injury occurring in 1991, as such symptoms would not have persisted up to the present time. Apart from a very slight scoliosis in the thoracic area and some minor age ages, the x-rays and the CT scan are essentially normal.
28. Dr D Morgan, orthopaedic surgeon, also noted a scoliosis of the applicant’s spine. He confirmed that there was no evidence of any bony structure injuries. He conceded that there was a possibility that the applicant sustained some form of musculo-ligamentous injury, although the natural history of such injury is a spontaneous resolution of same. The lack of medical treatment suggests that the parachuting incident was not a significant incident. In the purest terms, he considered that the parachuting incident may have precipitated a back problem, but realistically, he believed that such a link was tenuous. If there had been a musculo-ligamentous injury, he did not believe the applicant would have been able to continue with drill, marching and pack exercises.
29. Warrant Officer Aleck McCloskey, 6 RAR Long Tan Lines, Gallipoli Barracks, Milpo, Enoggera, gave evidence. He was in the 41st Royal NSW Regiment and was involved in parachuting activities from 1981 until 1997. He had two 2 year postings at the parachuting school, one as a corporal from 1984-1985 and the other as a sergeant in 1989-1991. He had been in the Army for 27 years.
30. He was the drop-zone supervising officer at the time of a parachuting incident involving the applicant on 16 April 1991. He completed that part of the Parachute Incident Malfunction Report which states:
“After watching all the exits I observed No 5 canopy and saw it had a partial malfunction. To me it looked as though the net skirt on the first hand side below the right hand side drive slot was knotted. The student did not deploy his reserve and landed safely on the DZ.”
31. He had not seen the applicant somersault forward on landing. He said he had witnessed 1000 jumps, and this was the only malfunction. Later, he said that he had never seen such a thing occur during any of the 2000-3000 landings he had witnessed. He considered that if the applicant had somersaulted and landed on his back, he would not have included the comment “landed safely”. In his opinion if the applicant had landed on his back, he would not have been able to get up and walk away.
32. He acknowledged that there was a steering malfunction, in that the canopy did not open in the normal manner, however the incident was not a serious one, given the small amount of canopy involved.
33. As supervising officer he watched every exit, he saw the applicant’s canopy come down, it never collapsed and he landed normally. He did not recall anyone unhooking the applicant’s parachute. He did not recall obtaining the applicant’s statement the day after and his recollection was that the applicant made his statement at the parachute school buildings. He had no recollection of speaking to him and writing a record of the conversation on a piece of paper on the bonnet of a Land Rover. He had no memory of the applicant undertaking another jump that day.
34. Whilst he could not recall the precise numbers involved, there would have been a maximum of four instructors in the martialling area and four others spread out over the drop zone, plus himself and the OC. The drop zone was in a remote area of Albatross, about ten kilometres from Nowra. He acknowledged that the presence of civilian sightseers was not an unusual event. He did not recall any civilian sightseers’ vehicles on the day in question, but in any event, if they were present, they would have been well to the side of the drop zone. He recalled the barbed wire fence on the perimeter of the drop zone and if the applicant had strayed off course there was a prospect of him landing on wire fence.
35. Although there was likely to be a small loss of steerage, he did not accept that there would have been any great loss of control. When the applicant was at a height of 1500 feet, he was observing him from a distance of 100-150 metres.
Submissions
36. Mr Hume, on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant had consistently alluded to the rigours of his military service and in particular the parachuting incident. The medical evidence demonstrates that he suffers from some form of tissue injury or musculo-skeletal strain. He had reported to the RAP for treatment and mention is made of a back condition on some of the medical board material. There are notations referring to x-rays, physiotherapy and CAT scans for a back problem.
37. Whilst Dr North does not accept that such a condition exists in the applicant, he is only one of four medical professionals who hold that view. In any event, Dr North was not asked to provide a diagnosis, and merely refers to a lumbar spine condition in the broadest terms. Additionally, Dr North was the only medical witness who did not find loss of range of movement or stiff or sore muscles.
38. The consensus of the medical witnesses is that the applicant suffers from a soft tissue or musculo-skeletal injury. In respect to Dr North’s evidence about inappropriate signs such as calluses on hands and feet and the state of the calf muscles, it should be borne in mind that calluses can be caused by other than repetitive exercise. Dr Morgan, Mr Morgan and Dr White all attest to loss of range of movement and palpation.
39. In relation to the incident itself, it is clear it was one of some note, considering that the malfunction was the only one in 2000 or 3000 jumps witnessed by Warrant Officer McCloskey. Whilst much reliance was placed on the incident report, its probative value is considerably reduced, given that only one part of it was completed by the applicant. The term “landed safely” was synonymous with being able to walk away. What the applicant indicated to the ground crew immediately after landing was not recorded, which is not surprising.
40. In relation to Mr McCloskey’s evidence, although he said he had an independent recollection of the event, he relied considerably on what he could glean from the contents of the incident report. Whilst he would not admit to a record being filled out at the scene, there was no benefit to the applicant in making such a statement. Mr Hume suggested that Mr McCloskey’s lack of recollection of people running forward after the landing, the unclipping of the applicant and enquires being made about his wellbeing was curious, given that it was a significant incident. Clearly, the incident occurred and the central issue revolves around how heavily the applicant landed. Mr McCloskey’s evidence was couched in terms of what is the usual range of events, rather than his specific recall of the incident involving the applicant.
41. To found liability, it is not necessary for the incident to be life threatening, and in any event, the applicant has never contended that this was the case. The incident was the basis of the acceptance by MCRS of a claim for the applicant’s knees.
42. The medical board records and other medical records were authored by various medical practitioners, none of which were viewed by the applicant until after his discharge. They should be viewed as having limited usefulness. Although the respondent attempted to impugn the applicant’s credit on the basis that he had not complained of back pain consistently, the applicant stated plainly that he saw little point in bringing it to medical practitioners’ attention given the lack of interest that was demonstrated on the occasions he did complain. It is significant however, that there are a number of medical board documents which refer to problems with back and/or neck.
43. Mr Clark argued that, as the first medical notation about the applicant’s back occurs many years after the parachuting incident, the case turns very much on the applicant’s evidence. Essentially there is not one objective finding to support the contention that the applicant suffers from back and neck pain which is causally linked with the parachute jump. Radiological examinations failed to demonstrate any abnormality. Dr White’s opinion is based very much on the historical description provided by the applicant and he made the comment that he was surprised that medical attention had not been sought earlier.
44. Dr Morgan was of the view that the symptoms would not have persisted up until the present time and therefore he considered that the link was tenuous. Mr Bruce Morgan was not qualified to give evidence of causation. Dr White, it was suggested, had provided an opinion which was likely to be clouded by his prior knowledge that the applicant had had other conditions accepted as a result of the same incident.
45. The applicant had lodged two claims prior to the claim for his back, and therefore it could not be said that he was a novice in the compensation jurisdiction. His evidence should be viewed with extreme caution, given the inconsistencies in the medical documents and the fact that the free fall from a height of two or three stories was not included in the incident report, which it was said, was inconceivable. There was no evidence of immediate swelling or bruising. The totality of the applicant’s evidence should cause the Tribunal to view it as unreliable.
46. The applicant was quick to dismiss documents which did not support his contentions and quick to embrace those which provided some measure of support. In a two year period, (referring to documents E9-E12), no record is made of the applicant reporting back or neck symptoms. This is in contrast with other conditions which are comprehensively documented.
47. In E13, it is noted that the applicant had suffered symptoms of back pain since Christmas, which is 2½ years after the incident. Further, during medical board examination on 15 November 1994, the applicant’s knees are recorded as abnormal and yet no mention is made of any abnormality to his back. The lack of any claim for back at the time of the claim for knees is inexplicable. The notations recording occasional low back pain are not consistent with the applicant’s evidence during hearing.
48. At T4-22, the record of “long history of painful knees and back” was given after the applicant had claimed for acceptance of back pain. His explanations as to the deficiencies in the medical records were inconsistent, in that he stated he would not report all the symptoms because it might affect his career, and yet he acknowledged that the medical board was viewed differently. If that was his understanding, there should have been t least some mention of his back.
49. Dr North’s reference to inappropriate signs and Dr Morgan’s comment that any link with the parachuting incident is tenuous, together with the credibility of the applicant’s evidence, supports the respondent’s view that liability should be denied.
The Legislation and its Application
50. Section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), provides as follows:
“(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(2) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self-inflicted.
(3) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self-inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.”
51. The term injury is defined in section 4 of the Act as follows:
“injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.”
52. Various terms have been used by health professionals to describe the applicant’s back pain and associated symptoms. Mr Bruce Morgan, occupational therapist, describes discomfort in the applicant’s neck and back is due to “soft tissue or musculo-ligamentous injury”. Dr White states that the diagnosis would “appear” to be a chronic musculo-ligamentous strain associated with a congenital anomaly at the lumbosacral junction. Dr Morgan states it is “possible” that the applicant sustained some form of musculo-ligamentous strain injury of the supporting structures of the lumbar part of the vertebral column and that it is also theoretically possible that he could have sustained an intradiscal disruption.
53. Dr North does not diagnosis an injury or a disease and states that the complaint of pain is not consistent with any orthopaedic pathology. Essentially he opined that there was no objective evidence to confirm the applicant’s complaints.
54. The Tribunal was urged to reject the applicant’s evidence as to the nature and severity of his reported symptoms on the basis that his evidence was demonstrably unreliable and, more significantly, there is not one objective finding that the applicant suffers from a back injury. However, given that a musculo-ligamentous strain is not always demonstrated on pathology, I find that there is sufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that an injury, described as a musculo-ligamentous strain, exists.
55. The issue then becomes whether it is causally related to the parachute jump. Much was made of the applicant’s failure to describe in more detail the landing and its aftermath on the incident report. It was submitted that Mr McCloskey’s recollection of events, in his capacity as drop zone supervisor, was to be preferred to that of the applicant. That evidence strongly suggests that the applicant did not suffer any injury.
56. However, I was not impressed with Mr McCloskey’s evidence, given that he had a poor recollection of events of the only malfunction he had witnessed. In fact, his evidence primarily consisted of what he usually observed, rather than concentrating on the particular jump under discussion. He denied that any notes were made at the time on the bonnet of a vehicle; he had no recollection of speaking to the applicant, and had no memory of him undertaking another jump that day. He did not recall anyone helping to unhook the applicant upon landing. Whilst the applicant was not a good historian in some respects, I did not consider that he had any cause to fabricate these events, noting that his evidence has consistently been that he walked away from the jump, apparently unharmed.
57. I accept that the applicant had some soreness in his back and neck area following the parachute jump. It is significant, however, that he did not commence to receive treatment for back pain until 1994. I have noted the inconsistent references in Mr Wallace’s medical board examination records on the status of his back, given that he has a congenital abnormality of thoracic scoliosis.
58. Even if I accept that the applicant continued to experience back symptoms from 1991, clearly there was adequate opportunity for him to seek treatment for those symptoms, and in fact he sought treatment for all other manner of problems. Whilst I accept that he self-treated with analgesics, the inference to be drawn from lack of medical treatment is that the symptoms were minor.
59. In examining the medical evidence as to causation, I have considered the evidence of Mr Morgan, who opines that a causal link exists. However, it is clear that he is influenced to some degree, by others, as noted by his comment:
“As noted in the report by Dr White who refers to a musculo-ligamentous strain, it is likely that problems began from the parachute jump and were exacerbated by the engagement of normal work duties which were of a heavy physical nature”.
60. Dr White ‘s opinion is couched in the following terms:
“On an historical basis there would appear to be a causal link between his Army service, namely the awkward parachute jump and consequent duties, and his claimed back condition.”
61. The evidence of Dr Morgan is that he had some difficulty in linking the present clinical circumstances with the parachuting incident, noting that he would have expected medical treatment to have been sought earlier. He considered that whilst a link was a possibility, in reality any such link was a tenuous one. He based his opinion on the fact that such a long period has elapsed and that he considered that the applicant would have been unable to undertake physical activities without medical attention. Additionally, the natural history of such an injury is that spontaneous resolution occurs. Dr North’s findings essentially are that the present complaint of symptoms is inconsistent with a soft tissue injury occurring in 1991. The totality of the medical evidence leaves me reasonably satisfied that the symptoms of which the applicant presently complains are not related to the incident in 1991.
62. In relation to the applicant’s evidence, I found it unsatisfactory in several respects. Specifically, I found it difficult to accept that he believed that liability was accepted for his back when he lodged his claim for acceptance of his knees. No satisfactory explanation was given as to why he held this belief. The claim for his knees was made in 1995, and the applicant’s evidence was that, by that time, he was having fairly regular problems with his back. The inference to be drawn from the lack of a claim at that time is that any back problem was not a significant one and it is only in recent years that it has been causing concern. This also lends some weight to the finding that any disability from which the applicant presently suffers in his back is not attributable to the parachuting incident. It was not suggested that there was any other service-related cause.
63. Accordingly, I affirm the decision under review.
I certify that the 63 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms J Cowdroy, Member
Signed: Sarah Oliver
AssociateDates of Hearing 17 and 18 February 2003
Date of Decision 16 May 2003Counsel for the Applicant Mr R Hume
Solicitor for the Applicant D'Arcys
Counsel for the Respondent Mr C Clark
Solicitor for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
0
0
0