{"id":"F2025L00491","name":"Statement of Principles concerning cut, stab, abrasion and laceration (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 37 of 2025)","slug":"statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":442811,"registerId":"F2025L00491-fast-fetch-1775957743671","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Statement of Principles concerning cut, stab, abrasion and laceration (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 37 of 2025)","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n ![RMA Australian Government Coat of Arms](image.001.jpeg)\n\n \n\nStatement of Principles\n\nconcerning\n\nCUT, STAB, ABRASION AND LACERATION  (Reasonable Hypothesis)\n\n(No. 37 of 2025)\n\nThe Repatriation Medical Authority determines the following Statement of Principles under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.\n\n \n\nDated                                               15 April 2025\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nProfessor Terence Campbell AM\n\nChairperson\n\nby and on behalf of\n\nThe Repatriation Medical Authority\n\n \n\n \n\n   \n\n\nContents\n\n1 Name\n\n2 Commencement\n\n3 Authority\n\n4 Repeal\n\n5 Application\n\n6 Definitions\n\n7 Kind of injury, disease or death to which this Statement of Principles relates\n\n8 Basis for determining the factors\n\n9 Factors that must exist\n\n10 Relationship to service\n\n11 Factors referring to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles\n\nSchedule 1 - Dictionary\n\n1 Definitions\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n1.                Name\n\n\nThis is the Statement of Principles concerning cut, stab, abrasion and laceration (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 37 of 2025).\n\n1.                Commencement\n\n\n              This instrument commences on 19 May 2025.\n\n1.                Authority\n\n\nThis instrument is made under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.\n\n1.                Repeal\n\n\nThe Statement of Principles concerning cut, stab, abrasion and laceration No. 53 of 2016 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2016L00567) made under subsections 196B(2) and (8) of the VEA is repealed.\n\n1.                Application\n\n\nThis instrument applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 applies.\n\n1.                Definitions\n\n\nThe terms defined in the Schedule 1 - Dictionary have the meaning given when used in this instrument.\n\n1.                Kind of injury, disease or death to which this Statement of Principles relates\n  1.           This Statement of Principles is about cut, stab, abrasion and laceration and death from cut, stab, abrasion and laceration.\n\n\nMeaning of cut, stab, abrasion and laceration\n\n1.           For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, cut, stab, abrasion and laceration:\n  1.           means an injury that interrupts the continuity of the epidermis or other external or exposed tissue and causes a wound. The wound may or may not penetrate to the subcutaneous tissues and underlying structures; and\n  2.           includes friction burns and needlestick injury; and\n  3.           excludes wounds that were caused by:\n    1.             burns other than friction burns;\n    2.          dental abrasion;\n    3.        explosive device or fragment thereof;\n    4.         gunshot;\n    5.           missile; or\n    6.         traumatic contusion or haematoma;\n\n\nNote: Examples of “other external or exposed tissue” include cornea, sclera, mouth, fingernails and toenails.\n\nDeath from cut, stab, abrasion and laceration\n\n1.           For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, cut, stab, abrasion and laceration, in relation to a person, includes death from a terminal event or condition that was contributed to by the person's cut, stab, abrasion and laceration.\n\n\nNote: terminal event is defined in the Schedule 1 – Dictionary.\n\n1.                Basis for determining the factors\n\n\nThe Repatriation Medical Authority is of the view that there is sound medical‑scientific evidence that indicates that cut, stab, abrasion and laceration and death from cut, stab, abrasion and laceration can be related to relevant service rendered by veterans, members of Peacekeeping Forces, or members of the Forces under the VEA, or members under the MRCA.\n\nNote: MRCA, relevant service and VEA are defined in the Schedule 1 – Dictionary.\n\n1.                Factors that must exist\n\n\nAt least one of the following factors must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting cut, stab, abrasion and laceration or death from cut, stab, abrasion and laceration with the circumstances of a person's relevant service:\n\n1.           having direct physical trauma to the affected site at the time of the cut, stab, abrasion or laceration;\n\n\nNote: Examples of friction burns (a type of abrasion) include those from sliding down ropes, motorcycle or bicycle accidents and a common type of stab wound is a needlestick injury.\n\n1.           inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for cut, stab, abrasion or laceration before clinical worsening.\n\n\n1.            Relationship to service\n  1.           The existence in a person of any factor referred to in section 9, must be related to the relevant service rendered by the person.\n  2.           The factor set out in subsection 9(2) applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, cut, stab, abrasion and laceration where the person's cut, stab, abrasion and laceration was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person's relevant service.\n2.            Factors referring to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles\n\n\nIn this Statement of Principles:\n\n1.           if a factor referred to in section 9 applies in relation to a person; and\n2.           that factor refers to an injury or disease in respect of which a Statement of Principles has been determined under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA;\n\n\nthen the factors in that Statement of Principles apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time.\n\n \n\n \n\nSchedule 1 - Dictionary  \n\nNote:               See Section 6\n\n1               Definitions\n\nIn this instrument:\n\n                               cut, stab, abrasion and laceration—see subsection 7(2).\n\n                             MRCA means the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.\n\n                             relevant service means:\n\n(a)          operational service under the VEA;\n\n(b)          peacekeeping service under the VEA;\n\n(c)          hazardous service under the VEA;\n\n(d)          British nuclear test defence service under the VEA;\n\n(e)          warlike service under the MRCA; or\n\n(f)           non-warlike service under the MRCA.\n\nNote: MRCA and VEA are defined in the Schedule 1 - Dictionary.\n\n                             terminal event means the proximate or ultimate cause of death and includes the following:\n\n(a)           pneumonia;\n\n(b)           respiratory failure;\n\n(c)           cardiac arrest;\n\n(d)           circulatory failure; or\n\n(e)           cessation of brain function.\n\n                             VEA means the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.\n\n \n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument replaces the 2016 Statement of Principles on the same injury types but does not appear to expand the policy domain significantly. It retains the core function—setting medical criteria to link cuts, stabs, abrasions and lacerations (and deaths from them) to relevant service—and preserves clear inclusions and exclusions. The updated text emphasises two trigger factors (direct physical trauma and inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) and clarifies temporal limits on the clinical‑management factor (see section 10(2)), but these are refinements rather than a substantial broadening of scope. The principal change is a technical update and consolidation of the medical criteria rather than a shift in the instrument's purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument (11 substantive sections plus a short dictionary/schedule)","Limited number of defined terms in Schedule 1 (MRCA, relevant service, terminal event, VEA, cut/stab/abrasion/laceration cross‑referenced to subsection 7(2))","Two primary factual factors in section 9 (simple disjunctive test: at least one must exist)","Minor conditional logic in section 10(2) limiting application of the clinical-management factor to pre-existing injuries or those suffered during but not arising out of service","Cross-reference to other Statements of Principles in section 11 (requires look-up of other instruments)","Repeal of a prior (2016) instrument introduces a versioning link but not heavy cross‑referencing","Plain language definitions with a small list of explicit exclusions (subsection 7(2)(3))"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanics)\n\n- Replaces the previous 2016 Statement of Principles about cuts, stabs, abrasions and lacerations.\n- Sets the medical criteria the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) uses to decide whether a veteran’s cut, stab, abrasion or laceration (or death from one of those injuries) can be connected to their military or peacekeeping service for the purposes of veterans’ benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) (see section 5 and section 3).\n- Identifies the kind of injury covered (an interruption of the skin or other exposed tissue that produces a wound) and lists included examples (friction burns, needlestick injuries) and explicit exclusions (most burns other than friction burns, dental abrasion, injuries from explosives, gunshot or missiles, traumatic contusion/haematoma) (subsection 7(2)).\n- Sets the minimum medical factors that must exist for a \"reasonable hypothesis\" that the injury is related to service (section 9). At least one required factor is: direct physical trauma to the affected site when the wound occurred; a second permitted factor is inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before the condition worsened.\n- Explains how a listed factor must be linked to the person's relevant service (section 10) and clarifies interaction with other Statements of Principles (section 11).\n\n**Who this affects\n\n- Primary: veterans, members of the Forces, and members of Peacekeeping Forces who lodge claims under the VEA or MRCA for cuts, stabs, abrasions, lacerations or death from those injuries (see section 5).\n- Secondary: decision-makers at the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) and medical assessors who apply this Statement of Principles when determining entitlement; medical practitioners providing clinical records that support or contradict the listed factors.\n\n**How it matters in practice (short form)\n\n- This instrument does not itself pay benefits. Instead it defines medical connections between specified wounds and a person’s military service. If a listed factor is present and can be related to relevant service, decision-makers may accept a \"reasonable hypothesis\" that the injury is service-related, which affects whether the claimant qualifies for entitlements under the VEA or MRCA.\n- The two triggerable pathways are: (1) the injury involved direct physical trauma at the time of the event; or (2) the person could not obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening. The second pathway is only about material contribution or aggravation where the wound pre‑dated or was suffered during service but did not arise out of service (see subsection 10(2)).\n\n**Official rationale (as stated by the RMA)\n\n- The RMA says there is sound medical‑scientific evidence that such injuries and death from them can be related to relevant service (section 8). That is the stated basis for setting the factors in this Statement of Principles.\n\n**Costs, incentives and practical trade-offs (analyst’s note)\n\n- Who pays: If the Statement of Principles supports a successful claim, public expenditure for compensation, treatment or rehabilitation under the VEA/MRCA is potentially triggered. The instrument itself does not allocate funds but changes the evidentiary test that affects who receives government-funded benefits.\n- Who decides: The RMA determines the medical criteria; DVA decision-makers apply them to individual claims. Medical evidence (hospital or GP records, incident reports) will be decisive for establishing the required factor(s).\n- Behavioural effects and incentives: Claimants and their doctors will be incentivised to gather contemporaneous clinical records, treatment notes and incident descriptions that prove direct trauma or demonstrate inability to access appropriate care. Conversely, absence of records may make claims harder to sustain.\n- Compliance and administrative burden: The rules increase demand for medical documentation and expert assessment. This raises administrative workload for claimants, treating clinicians and DVA case officers. Decision-makers may need to seek further medical opinion where facts are unclear.\n- Bureaucratic discretion and predictability: The RMA sets a relatively clear two‑factor test, limiting discretionary interpretations compared with wholly case-by-case medical adjudication. However, terms like \"appropriate clinical management\" and \"material contribution\" require factual judgement, leaving room for discretionary assessment by medical assessors and DVA.\n- Interaction with other Statements of Principles: If a factor refers to an injury or disease already covered by another Statement of Principles, that other Statement’s factors apply as they stand (section 11). This cross‑application can complicate claims that involve multiple injuries or overlapping medical causes.\n- Market and private-sector impact: The instrument largely affects public entitlements rather than private markets. It may have modest indirect effects on private insurers or employers if decisions about service-relatedness change liability allocation or access to state-funded treatment, but the statement itself does not regulate private parties, prices, competition or contract freedom.\n\n**Implementation risks and unintended consequences to watch for\n\n- Ambiguity over what counts as \"appropriate clinical management\" could generate inconsistent outcomes and appeals.\n- Reliance on records may disadvantage older claims or situations where contemporaneous treatment records are missing (diffuse cost to claimants).\n- Cross-references to other Statements of Principles create potential complexity where multiple medical conditions intersect; decision-makers must track and apply several instruments consistently.\n\n**Key provisions to read for detail\n\n- Definition of covered injury: subsection 7(2).\n- Minimum factors raising a reasonable hypothesis: section 9.\n- Relationship to service rules and temporal limitation on the clinical-management factor: section 10.\n- Cross‑application with other Statements: section 11.\n\n"},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a straightforward reissue/replacement of the 2016 Statement of Principles on the same topic. The scope remains tightly focused on determining when cut, stab, abrasion and laceration injuries are compensable for veterans. No expansion beyond the original purpose is evident — it updates the instrument without broadening its application."},"complexity_factors":["Short document — approximately 1,500 words across 11 sections plus a brief dictionary","Only 5 defined terms in the dictionary (cut/stab/abrasion/laceration, MRCA, relevant service, terminal event, VEA)","Simple binary structure: two alternative factors in section 9, with one having a limited application in section 10","Minimal cross-referencing — only internal references to the Dictionary and other Statements of Principles","Clear exclusions list (6 specific items) and inclusions (friction burns, needlestick) in the definition section","No nested exceptions or conditional logic beyond the basic \"at least one factor must exist\" requirement"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument updates the rules used by the Repatriation Medical Authority to decide when cuts, stabs, abrasions and lacerations count as service-related for compensation claims under the VEA and MRCA. It clarifies the kinds of skin‑breaking wounds covered (including friction burns and needlestick injuries) and those excluded, and sets the qualifying factors claimants must meet.\n\nIt matters because it governs when seemingly simple wounds are accepted as service‑connected."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2","history":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2/history","analysis":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-cut-stab-abrasion-and-laceration-reasonable-hypothesis-no-37-of-2/documents"}}