REPATRIATION MEDICAL AUTHORITY
INSTRUMENT NO. 78 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. 56 of 1996, determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA concerning posterior adventitial heel bursitis.
2. The Authority is of the view that on the sound medical-scientific evidence available it is more probable than not 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(3) of the VEA a Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 78 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 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, heel bursitis or death from heel bursitis is connected 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. 78 of 2010, under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, addresses the problem of establishing a link between heel bursitis and particular types of military service. This instrument revokes the previous Instrument No. 56 of 1996 concerning posterior adventitial heel bursitis and introduces a new Statement of Principles to outline the factors necessary for such a connection to be recognised. The Authority, which operates under the VEA, determined this new instrument based on available medical-scientific evidence suggesting that heel bursitis and death from heel bursitis are likely related to specific service circumstances. The policy objective is to ensure that veterans can claim compensation for service-related injuries and diseases, aligning with the provisions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This instrument not only updates the format and terminology but also clarifies the application of the Statement of Principles for both the VEA and the MRCA.
Scope and Application
The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 78 of 2010, issued under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, pertains to claims concerning heel bursitis, including death from heel bursitis, and replaces the previously revoked Instrument No. 56 of 1996. This new Instrument applies to veterans and service personnel who have engaged in eligible war service, defence service, or peacetime service as defined by the respective Acts. The Statement of Principles outlined in this Instrument establishes the necessary conditions and factors that must be related to the service rendered to substantiate a connection between the condition and the service. For claims related to injuries, diseases, or deaths occurring on or after 1 July 2004, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission determines the acceptance of liability in accordance with the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, by reference to Statements of Principles issued by the Authority. The Instrument has been revised to adopt the latest format, redefine specific terms, and provide clarity on its application to both the VEA and the MRCA.
Key Provisions
The main operative sections of the Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 78 of 2010 concern the revocation of the previous Statement of Principles regarding posterior adventitial heel bursitis (section 2) and the introduction of a new Statement of Principles concerning heel bursitis (section 4). The new Instrument outlines the factors that must be present and linked to certain types of service (section 4) before it can be said that heel bursitis or death from heel bursitis is connected with the service circumstances. This Instrument is determined under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). Additionally, section 11 specifies the date of effect for the Instrument, clarifying its applicability.
The obligations and requirements imposed by the Act on parties and entities it governs include the determination of Statements of Principles by the Repatriation Medical Authority (section 4). This involves considering sound medical-scientific evidence to establish the connection between heel bursitis and specified types of service. The Authority is also required to advertise its intention to investigate and invite submissions from relevant organisations and individuals with expertise in the field (section 9). The new Instrument must reflect the latest revised format, include definitions of terms such as 'heel bursitis' and 'death from heel bursitis', and clarify the relevance of the Instrument to both the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) (section 7). The Authority must ensure that the Instrument is consistent with the latest medical-scientific evidence available.
The Act does not explicitly mention specific offences, penalties, or consequences for breach in the provided excerpt. However, it is understood that non-compliance with the statutory obligations and requirements could result in administrative or legal repercussions. Under the VEA and MRCA, failure to adhere to the guidelines and requirements for determining Statements of Principles may lead to disputes regarding the acceptance of liability for service injuries or diseases. Additionally, the Authority’s determinations are subject to review and appeal processes, which could result in further legal consequences for any perceived breaches of the legislative provisions.
In summary, Instrument No. 78 of 2010 outlines the criteria for establishing a connection between heel bursitis and certain types of service, reflecting the latest medical-scientific evidence. The Authority must determine these Statements of Principles and adhere to specific procedural requirements, including advertising investigations and inviting relevant submissions. While the Act does not detail specific penalties for breaches, non-compliance could lead to disputes and legal challenges regarding the acceptance of liability for service-related injuries or diseases.