A tribunal has rejected a former military officer’s compensation claim that alleged the Australian Army had overlooked his injuries which caused him to suffer dental caries and a tooth fracture.
The former member of the army sought a review from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal over a decision made by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC). The commission refused to pay him compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Act) for dental issues.
The MRCC had denied liability to pay compensation for the former army member’s dental caries and tooth fracture.
The former officer claimed these conditions occurred in 1996 while he was employed in the Australian Army. He claimed he “chipped” his tooth while in IET (initial employment training) and was told he could not see a dentist until he was posted to his unit in six weeks.
The MRCC was not satisfied that the claimed conditions arose out of, or in the course of, the worker’s employment, or that these conditions were contributed to a material degree by his employment with the Commonwealth.
In the hearing, the tribunal found that based on the available evidence, and most relevantly, the weight of expert evidence, it was not satisfied that the worker met the requisite statutory requirements for the MRCC to be found liable to pay him compensation, including in the form of medical treatment costs, pursuant to the Act.
“The former section 4 of the Act required that, respectively, an employee suffered an injury that ‘arose out of, or in the course of’ their employment or that a disease was ‘contributed to, to a material degree’ by that employment with the Commonwealth,” Tribunal Member William Frost said.
“The tribunal is not satisfied that the [worker] meets either requirement for his claim to be successful.”
Member Frost held that the worker’s dental caries, or tooth decay, constitute a “disease” under subsection 4(1) of the Act because the development of this condition occurs gradually over time.
There was no medical evidence before the tribunal to support the contention that there was any contribution from the worker’s employment to the disease of dental caries.
The medical evidence also demonstrated that the worker’s dental caries developed over time and commenced prior to his enlistment with the Army in February 1996.
“The lack of contradictory medical evidence, where such evidence can be determinative of the issues in dispute, is a factor weighing heavily against the [worker]’s application, especially in light of the strength of the medical evidence weighing against his claim, which evidence has been accepted by the tribunal,” Member Frost said.
“For completeness, the tribunal finds that there has been no ‘aggravation’ of either an injury or disease under the Act.”
The tribunal affirmed the application was unsuccessful, and the decision was under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the AAT Act.
