REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
INSTRUMENT NO. 77 of 2010
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. 55 of 1996, determined under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA concerning posterior adventitial heel bursitis.
2. The Authority is of the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that heel bursitis and death from heel bursitis can be related to particular kinds of service. The Authority has therefore determined pursuant to subsection 196B(2) of the VEA a Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 77 of 2010 concerning heel bursitis. This Instrument will in effect replace the revoked Statement 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 as a minimum exist, and which of those factors must be related to the following kinds of service rendered by a person:
operational service under the VEA;
peacekeeping service under the VEA;
hazardous service under the VEA;
warlike service under the MRCA;
non-warlike service under the MRCA,
before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting heel bursitis or death from heel bursitis, with the circumstances of that service.
5. This new Instrument results from an investigation notified by the Authority in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008 concerning posterior adventitial heel bursitis 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 contents of the new Instrument are in similar terms as the revoked Instrument. Comparing the new 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 from 'posterior adventitial heel bursitis' to 'heel bursitis';
- new definition of 'heel bursitis' in clause 3;
- revising factors 6(a) & 6(b) concerning 'ill-fitting footwear';
- new definitions of 'death from heel bursitis' and 'terminal event' in clause 9;
- revising definition of 'relevant service' in clause 9;
- deleting definitions of 'ICD code', 'ill fitting closed shoes' and 'posterior adventitial heel bursitis'; and
- specifying a date of effect for the Instrument in clause 11.
7. 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.
8. Prior to determining this Instrument, the Authority advertised its intention to undertake an investigation in relation to posterior adventitial heel bursitis 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.
9. The determining of this new Instrument finalises the investigation in relation to posterior adventitial heel bursitis as advertised in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008.
10. 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. 77 of 2010 amends and replaces Instrument No. 55 of 1996 under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). This revision was enacted to address the relationship between heel bursitis and specific types of military service, providing updated criteria and definitions to reflect the latest medical-scientific evidence. The Repatriation Medical Authority, under the authority vested in it by subsection 196B(8) of the VEA, revoked the previous instrument to establish a new Statement of Principles concerning heel bursitis. This change responds to evidence that suggests a connection between heel bursitis and particular military services, ensuring that compensation claims for such conditions are assessed appropriately. The policy objective is to provide clarity and fairness in the determination of liability for service-related injuries or diseases, aligning with the provisions of the MRCA for claims post-1 July 2004.
Scope and Application
The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) establish the framework for determining and providing compensation for service-related injuries and diseases. The Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) under the VEA has revoked Instrument No. 55 of 1996 concerning posterior adventitial heel bursitis and replaced it with Instrument No. 77 of 2010, addressing heel bursitis. This new Instrument outlines the medical-scientific evidence linking heel bursitis and death from heel bursitis to specific types of service, including operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, warlike, and non-warlike service, and sets out the factors that must exist for a reasonable hypothesis to connect heel bursitis or death from heel bursitis with the circumstances of the service. The Instrument is applicable to claims for compensation that commenced on 1 July 2004 and is determined by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission by reference to Statements of Principles issued by the RMA. The Authority's determination follows an investigation notified in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008 and involves examining the latest sound medical-scientific evidence available, with the Instrument reflecting the latest format and terminology. The Authority considered the changes to the Instrument format and the commencement of the MRCA, ensuring that the Statement of Principles applies for both the VEA and the MRCA.
Key Provisions
The main operative sections of this legislation pertain to the Repatriation Medical Authority's determination of a new Statement of Principles (Instrument No. 77 of 2010) concerning heel bursitis, replacing the previously revoked Instrument No. 55 of 1996. This new Instrument (section 4) outlines the minimum factors that must exist, and how they must relate to certain kinds of service (section 4), to establish a connection between heel bursitis or death from heel bursitis and the circumstances of that service. The new Instrument reflects the latest format and terminology, and is designed to be applicable under both the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). The Authority determined this Instrument following an investigation into posterior adventitial heel bursitis, which was notified in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008, and after considering any relevant submissions (section 9).
The Repatriation Medical Authority, as the governing body under the VEA, has imposed several obligations on the parties and entities it governs. These include determining Statements of Principles for specific medical conditions, such as heel bursitis, that may be related to particular kinds of military service. The Authority is also required to advertise its intention to investigate such conditions, and invite submissions from relevant organisations and individuals. Additionally, the Authority must ensure that any new Instrument is formatted and worded in accordance with the latest guidelines and terminology, and that it is applicable under the relevant legislation, in this case both the VEA and the MRCA.
The legislation does not explicitly detail specific offences, penalties, or consequences for breach. However, non-compliance with the obligations and requirements of the Repatriation Medical Authority, such as failing to determine Statements of Principles or neglecting to advertise investigations, could potentially lead to legal challenges or disputes regarding the validity of any determinations or compensation claims. The Authority's decisions may also be subject to review or appeal under the applicable legislation, which could result in further legal consequences for the parties involved. While the legislation itself does not outline maximum penalties for breach, it is essential for all parties to adhere to the Authority's obligations to ensure the proper administration of veterans' entitlements and military rehabilitation and compensation.