REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
INSTRUMENT NO. 113 of 2011
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986
MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 2004
EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR TABLING
- The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority), under subsection 196B(8) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VEA), revokes Instrument No. 66 of 1997, as amended by Instrument No. 24 of 2004, determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA concerning contact dermatitis.
2. The Authority is of the view that on the sound medical-scientific evidence available it is more probable than not that allergic contact dermatitis and death from allergic contact dermatitis can be related to particular kinds of service. The Authority has therefore determined pursuant to subsection 196B(3) of the VEA a Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 113 of 2011 concerning allergic contact dermatitis. This Instrument will in effect replace the revoked Statements of Principles.
3. The provisions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the MRCA) relating to claims for compensation commenced on 1 July 2004. Claims under section 319 of the MRCA for acceptance of liability for a service injury sustained, a service disease contracted or service death on or after 1 July 2004 are determined by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission by reference to Statements of Principles issued by the Authority pursuant to the VEA.
4. The Statement of Principles sets out the factors that must exist, and which of those factors must be related to the following kinds of service rendered by a person:
eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA;
defence service (other than hazardous service) under the VEA;
peacetime service under the MRCA,
before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, allergic contact dermatitis or death from allergic contact dermatitis is connected with the circumstances of that service.
5. This Instrument results from an investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008 concerning contact dermatitis in accordance with section 196G of the VEA. The investigation involved an examination of the sound medical-scientific evidence now available to the Authority, including the sound medical-scientific evidence it has previously considered.
6. The investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008 concerning contact dermatitis has resulted in the revocation of statements of principles concerning contact dermatitis and determination of statements of principles concerning irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis.
7. The contents of this Instrument are in similar terms as the revoked Instruments. Comparing this Instrument and the revoked Instruments, the differences include:
- adopting the latest revised Instrument format, which commenced in 2005;
- deleting the ICD code from the Instrument header;
- changing the name of the Instrument to reflect only the allergic form of contact dermatitis. This instrument is renamed 'allergic contact dermatitis';
- new definition of 'allergic contact dermatitis' in clause 3;
- revising factor 6(a) concerning 'exposure to the allergen';
- revising factor 6(b) concerning 'having direct cutaneous re-exposure to the allergen';
- new definitions of 'death from allergic contact dermatitis', 'ICD-10-AM code' and 'terminal event' in clause 9;
- revising definitions of 'allergen' and 'relevant service' in clause 9;
- deleting definitions of 'allergen responsible for the contact dermatitis' and 'allergic contact dermatitis' in clause 9; and
- specifying a date of effect for the Instrument in clause 11.
8. Further changes to the format of the Instrument reflect the commencement of the MRCA and clarify that pursuant to subsection 196B(3A) of the VEA, the Statement of Principles has been determined for the purposes of both the VEA and the MRCA.
9. Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to contact dermatitis in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008, and circulated a copy of the notice of intention to investigate to a wide range of organisations representing veterans, service personnel and their dependants. The Authority invited submissions from the Repatriation Commission, organisations and persons referred to in section 196E of the VEA, and any person having expertise in the field. No submissions were received for consideration by the Authority during the investigation.
10. The determining of this Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to contact dermatitis as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008.
11. A list of references relating to the above condition is available to any person or organisation referred to in subsection 196E(1)(a) to (c) of the VEA. Any such request must be made in writing to the Repatriation Medical Authority at the following address:
The Registrar
Repatriation Medical Authority Secretariat
GPO Box 1014
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Overview
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 113 of 2011, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), addresses the issue of establishing the connection between allergic contact dermatitis and specific types of military service, thereby clarifying the criteria for compensation claims. This instrument revokes the previously established statements of principles concerning contact dermatitis and introduces a new set of principles specifically for allergic contact dermatitis, based on recent medical-scientific evidence. The policy objective of this instrument is to ensure that claims for compensation related to allergic contact dermatitis, whether in cases of service injury, disease, or death, are evaluated based on the most current and reliable evidence, and to facilitate fair and informed decisions in line with legislative requirements.
Scope and Application
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 113 of 2011, concerning allergic contact dermatitis, is an instrument made under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and applies to veterans and service personnel who have sustained allergic contact dermatitis or death from allergic contact dermatitis as a result of their service. This Instrument determines the criteria for acceptance of liability for service-related allergic contact dermatitis and death from allergic contact dermatitis, replacing the previously revoked Statements of Principles concerning contact dermatitis. The Instrument applies to eligible war service, defence service, and peacetime service as defined by the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). The Instrument outlines the factors that must exist and be related to the service in question for a connection to allergic contact dermatitis or death from allergic contact dermatitis to be accepted on the balance of probabilities. The instrument's application is national, as it pertains to veterans and service personnel across Australia, and it extends to both the VEA and the MRCA. This Instrument does not specify any exclusions, exemptions, or thresholds. The Repatriation Medical Authority may extend or restrict the application of this Instrument through subordinate instruments as necessary.
Key Provisions
The Repatriation Medical Authority, under subsection 196B(8) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), has revoked Instrument No. 66 of 1997, as amended by Instrument No. 24 of 2004, concerning contact dermatitis. This decision is based on the Authority's view that it is more probable than not that allergic contact dermatitis and death from allergic contact dermatitis can be related to particular kinds of service. Consequently, the Authority has determined a new Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 113 of 2011, concerning allergic contact dermatitis. This instrument replaces the previous revoked statements of principles and outlines the factors necessary for a connection between allergic contact dermatitis or death from allergic contact dermatitis and specific types of service, including eligible war service, defence service, and peacetime service.
The Statement of Principles set out in Instrument No. 113 of 2011 requires that certain factors must exist and be related to the relevant service for a claim to be accepted. These factors are essential in determining whether allergic contact dermatitis or death from such dermatitis is connected with the circumstances of the service. Specifically, the document identifies the types of service that must be considered under the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). For claims under section 319 of the MRCA, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission will determine the acceptance of liability for service injuries, diseases, or deaths on or after 1 July 2004 by referencing the Statements of Principles issued by the Authority.
The obligations and requirements imposed by the Act primarily concern the establishment of a clear framework for determining the connection between service and allergic contact dermatitis or death from such dermatitis. The Repatriation Medical Authority is responsible for conducting investigations, gathering sound medical-scientific evidence, and determining Statements of Principles. These statements must then be applied by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission when assessing claims for compensation. Additionally, the Authority is mandated to advertise its intention to investigate and invite submissions from relevant stakeholders, although in this case, no submissions were received.
The consequences for breach of the provisions outlined in this instrument are not explicitly stated in the document, but generally, non-compliance with the requirements for determining and applying the Statements of Principles could result in legal challenges or administrative penalties. The Authority’s determinations are based on sound medical-scientific evidence, and any failure to adhere to the established criteria could be subject to review or challenge by the courts. Although specific penalties are not mentioned, the importance of accurate and evidence-based determinations underscores the potential for significant repercussions if the obligations are not met.