Request for Review Declaration No. 19 - Statements of Principles Nos. 37 & 38 of 2005 as amended by Statements of Principles Nos. 78 & 79 of 2008 and 36 & 37 of 2010 in respect of lumbar spondylosis

Overview

The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) was enacted to provide a range of benefits and services to veterans and their families, addressing gaps in support and recognition of the sacrifices made by individuals who have served in the Australian Defence Force. The Specialist Medical Review Council (SMRC), established under subsection 196W of the VEA, plays a crucial role in ensuring that the medical criteria used to assess veterans' claims are based on sound medical-scientific evidence. In June 2013, the SMRC declared, through Declaration No. 19, that there is sufficient evidence to include specific factors related to extreme prolonged forward flexion or bending for a cumulative total of at least 1500 hours in the Statements of Principles concerning lumbar spondylosis, while concluding that the evidence is insufficient to justify the inclusion of repetitive extension or twisting of the lumbar spine. This declaration aims to provide clarity and ensure that the assessment of lumbar spondylosis claims is based on the most current and reliable medical evidence available.

Scope and Application

The Specialist Medical Review Council Declarations No. 19 under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 addresses the criteria and conditions for amending Statements of Principles Nos. 37 and 38 concerning lumbar spondylosis, specifically in relation to veterans who may have incurred this condition as a result of their service. The Council’s declaration applies to the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) and affects veterans, medical professionals, and potentially other entities involved in the assessment and compensation of veterans’ medical conditions. The geographic scope of this legislation is national, as it pertains to veterans across Australia who are seeking recognition and compensation for service-related lumbar spondylosis. The Council’s directive mandates the inclusion of specific factors such as extreme prolonged forward flexion/bending for a cumulative total of at least 1500 hours in the Statements of Principles, while also noting that there is insufficient evidence to include repetitive extension or twisting of the lumbar spine. The application of this declaration is binding on the RMA and affects the process through which veterans' claims for lumbar spondylosis are assessed and compensated.

Key Provisions

The main operative sections of this legislation, as declared by the Specialist Medical Review Council (the Council), involve the amendment of the Repatriation Medical Authority’s (the RMA) Statements of Principles concerning lumbar spondylosis. Specifically, under subsection 196W of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA), the Council has determined that there is sufficient medical-scientific evidence to warrant amendments to Statements of Principles Nos. 37 and 38 of 2005, as amended by Statements of Principles Nos. 78 and 79 of 2008 and Statements of Principles Nos. 36 and 37 of 2010. The Council has directed that these statements be amended to include factors related to extreme/prolonged forward flexion/bending of the lumbar spine for a cumulative total of at least 1500 hours. Conversely, the Council has declared that there is insufficient evidence to amend the statements to include factors related to repetitive extension or twisting of the lumbar spine. The obligations imposed by this legislation on the parties involved are primarily directed towards the RMA. The Council has mandated that the RMA amend the specified Statements of Principles to incorporate the identified factors of extreme/prolonged forward flexion/bending of the lumbar spine. This directive necessitates that the RMA review its existing statements and make the necessary amendments to align with the Council's declaration. The Council has also communicated that the available medical-scientific evidence does not support the inclusion of factors related to repetitive extension or twisting, which means the RMA is not required to amend the statements in this regard. In terms of potential consequences for non-compliance, the legislation does not explicitly outline criminal or civil penalties for failing to adhere to the Council's directives. However, the ramifications of non-compliance could include legal challenges, reputational damage, and potential administrative or judicial review. The RMA would be expected to implement the Council's directives promptly and accurately to avoid any legal or procedural repercussions. Additionally, the Council retains the authority to seek judicial enforcement of its declarations if the RMA fails to comply, ensuring that the legislative intent is upheld.