{"id":"F2020L00485","name":"Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 25 of 2020)","slug":"statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":440459,"registerId":"F2020L00485-fast-fetch-1775956070608","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 25 of 2020)","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n\n\n \n\nStatement of Principles\n\nconcerning\n\nEXPLOSIVE BLAST INJURY (Reasonable Hypothesis)\n\n(No. 25 of 2020)\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 24 April 2020\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n| The Common Seal of the Repatriation Medical Authority was affixed to this instrument at the direction of:
|\n| --- |\n| 
Professor Nicholas Saunders AO
Chairperson
|\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\n1 Name\n\nThis is the Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 25 of 2020).\n\n2 Commencement\n\n This instrument commences on 25 May 2020.\n\n3 Authority\n\nThis instrument is made under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.\n\n4 Repeal\n\nThe Statement of Principles concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 48 of 2012 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2012L01789) made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA is repealed.\n\n5 Application\n\nThis instrument applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act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\n6 Definitions\n\nThe terms defined in the Schedule 1 - Dictionary have the meaning given when used in this instrument.\n\n7 Kind of injury, disease or death to which this Statement of Principles relates\n\n(1) This Statement of Principles is about explosive blast injury and death from explosive blast injury.\n\nMeaning of explosive blast injury\n\n(2) For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, explosive blast injury means damage to body tissue, organs or bone as a result of an explosive blast.\n\nDeath from explosive blast injury\n\n(3) For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, explosive blast injury, in relation to a person, includes death from a terminal event or condition that was contributed to by the person's explosive blast injury.\n\nNote: terminal event is defined in the Schedule 1 – Dictionary.\n\n8 Basis for determining the factors\n\nThe Repatriation Medical Authority is of the view that there is sound medical‑scientific evidence that indicates that explosive blast injury and death from explosive blast injury 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\n9 Factors that must exist\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 explosive blast injury or death from explosive blast injury with the circumstances of a person's relevant service:\n\n(1) being exposed to an explosive blast;\n\n(2) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury.\n\n10 Relationship to service\n\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\n(2) The factor set out in subsection 9(2) applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, explosive blast injury where the person's explosive blast injury was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person's relevant service.\n\n11 Factors referring to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles\n\nIn this Statement of Principles:\n\n(1) if a factor referred to in section 9 applies in relation to a person; and\n\n(2) 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\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 explosive blast injury—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 also 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_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"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This instrument repeals the earlier Statement concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge (No. 48 of 2012) (s4) and replaces it with a Statement specifically about 'explosive blast injury' including death (s7). It therefore alters the textual scope of covered injury types and the qualifying factors for raising a reasonable hypothesis (s9), and requires claim handlers to apply the new definitions and to consult other applicable Statements where overlap exists (s11)."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow medical subject matter: focuses on a single injury class (explosive blast injury) with a short definition (s7).","Low evidentiary threshold but legal standard: uses the 'reasonable hypothesis' standard which requires legal interpretation despite simple factual factors (overall instrument; s9).","Few, discrete qualifying factors: only two primary factors are listed (exposure to blast; inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) (s9), reducing procedural complexity but leaving factual/medical proof to be established.","Cross‑references to other statutes and instruments: applies to claims under VEA and MRCA (s5, Schedule 1) and incorporates other Statements of Principles where overlapping injuries exist (s11), requiring administrators to check and reconcile multiple instruments.","Repeal and replacement effect: repeals an earlier Statement (s4), so decision‑makers must map legacy claims and language to the new terms.","Interpretive burden on factual terms: key phrases (eg. 'exposed to an explosive blast', 'inability to obtain appropriate clinical management', 'terminal event') require medical/administrative fact‑finding (s7(2), s9, Schedule 1)."],"plain_english_summary":"This Statement of Principles defines when explosive blast injury (including death) can be treated as connected to a person's service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. \n\nIt sets a \"reasonable hypothesis\" threshold and requires at least exposure to an explosive blast or inability to obtain appropriate clinical management; decisions by the Repatriation Medical Authority guide entitlement claims and affect veterans, service members, and claims administrators."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument maintains its original narrow scope. It replaces a 2012 Statement of Principles concerning \"physical injury due to munitions discharge\" with a more precisely defined condition (\"explosive blast injury\"), but does not expand beyond the original purpose of establishing liability factors for blast-related physical trauma in the veterans compensation system."},"complexity_factors":["Short, focused instrument with only 11 operative sections plus a brief dictionary","Minimal cross-referencing — only refers to the parent Acts (VEA and MRCA) and one repealed instrument","Simple binary test in section 9: only two alternative factors, with one factor (section 9(2)) having a single limiting condition in section 10(2)","Only 6 defined terms in the Dictionary, with straightforward definitions","No nested exceptions or complex conditional logic — the structure is essentially: (exposure to blast) OR (treatment inability + pre-existing injury aggravated)","Clear delineation between the two compensation schemes (VEA for older veterans, MRCA for post-2004 service)"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument defines \"explosive blast injury\" as a compensable injury linked to military service, replacing the 2012 munitions-discharge policy. It lets veterans and current/former defence members who served in war, peacekeeping or hazardous operations claim compensation where exposure to a blast (or service-worsening of a pre‑existing injury due to lack of treatment) is reasonably hypothesised.\n\nIt applies to injury and death from blast-related harm and uses a lower \"reasonable hypothesis\" standard to help access DVA medical and financial support."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020","history":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020/history","analysis":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/statement-of-principles-concerning-explosive-blast-injury-reasonable-hypothesis-no-25-of-2020/documents"}}