White and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Mr. White, against a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission regarding his claim for compensation. The Applicant, who had served in the Royal Australian Navy, developed a rare cancer, Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma (ACC), in his right ear canal. He alleged that his exposure to chromate dust during his naval service was causally linked to his cancer. The case was heard by J Sosso SM.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was a sufficient causal relationship between the Applicant's exposure to strontium chromate dust during his naval service and the subsequent development of ACC in his right ear canal. This required the Tribunal to determine if the Applicant's condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his service, as contemplated by sections 5B and 14 of the relevant Act. The Tribunal had to weigh conflicting medical evidence, with the Applicant's experts suggesting a link and the Respondent's expert denying any such possibility.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the medical evidence was divergent and lacked absolute certainty, it was sufficient to establish a causal link on the balance of probabilities. It noted that chromate-based paint was a known carcinogen and that the Applicant had been directly and repeatedly exposed to strontium chromate dust in his right ear canal during his service. Despite the Respondent's reliance on expert evidence suggesting no known link between chromate exposure and ACC, the Tribunal found that the medical science was not settled on this specific issue. Applying the principles from *Tabet v Gett* and *Forst*, the Tribunal concluded that the direct exposure to a carcinogenic substance at the site of the subsequent cancer, coupled with the absence of other plausible explanations and the lack of settled medical science to the contrary, gave rise to a presumptive inference of a causal link. This inference was not displaced by the presented medical evidence.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a decision accepting the Applicant's contention that his ACC was causally linked to his naval service.