Statement of Principles concerning accidental hypothermia (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 24 of 2026)

The Statement establishes a concise set of medical and causal concepts for accidental hypothermia in the context of veteran and defence‑related compensation claims. Key definitional and conceptual points follow directly from the text.

Definition of accidental hypothermia. Accidental hypothermia is defined as the unintentional lowering of core body temperature to 35 degrees Celsius or lower caused by exposure to low environmental temperature, occurring in an individual without a primary disturbance of thermoregulation (s 7(2)(a)). The instrument then expressly excludes (a) intentionally induced hypothermia and (b) hypothermia due to toxicologic or pharmacologic causes (s 7(2)(b)). Thus the statutory concept is limited to unintentional, environment‑driven hypothermia not primarily caused by drugs/toxins or induced therapeutic or other intentional practices.

Clinical threshold. The instrument fixes the physiological threshold used in its definition at a core body temperature of 35 degrees Celsius or lower (s 7(2)(a)). The ICD-10-AM code T68 is acknowledged as ordinarily associated with accidental hypothermia, but the instrument states that for its purposes the statutory definition in s 7(2) controls (s 7(3)). A reference to an ICD code is to the ICD-10-AM Tenth Edition effective 1 July 2017 (s 7(4)).

Death from accidental hypothermia. The Statement includes death that results from a terminal event or condition contributed to by accidental hypothermia. Terminal events are defined in the Schedule and include pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, and cessation of brain function (s 7(5); Schedule 1: terminal event). Therefore a fatality may be accepted as connected to accidental hypothermia where the hypothermia contributed to one of the listed terminal events.

Causation standard and application to service. The Authority states its view, based on the available medical scientific evidence, that it is more probable than not that accidental hypothermia and death from it can be related to relevant service rendered by veterans or members of the Forces under the VEA, or members under the MRCA (s 8). That is an explicit application of the balance of probabilities standard to the medical view embedded in the Statement.

Factors that must exist. The Statement identifies discrete factual or medical factors the Authority requires to be present to link hypothermia to relevant service on the balance of probabilities (s 9). At least one of these must exist. They are: exposure to low environmental temperature at the time of clinical onset of accidental hypothermia (s 9(1)); and inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for accidental hypothermia before clinical worsening (s 9(2)). The instrument includes a note that exposure to low environmental temperatures occurs during military training or exercises in the outdoors but also lists non-service examples (occupational exposure, poorly controlled psychiatric disease or suicide attempt, substances or disease affecting consciousness, injury affecting mobility, cognitive impairment, homelessness). That note does not change the statutory requirement that the factor be related to relevant service under s 10.

Relationship to other Statements of Principles. If a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease for which another Statement of Principles exists, that other Statement applies in accordance with its terms as in force from time to time (s 11). This creates a cross‑reference mechanism so that the medical causal framework for other conditions can be incorporated where relevant.

Relevant service and exclusions. The Schedule defines relevant service as eligible war service (other than operational service), defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, or peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1: relevant service). Those definitions set the limits of which forms of service are within the instrument’s scope.

Operational mechanics. The Statement is not a clinical guideline for treatment. It is a determinative, statutory assessment framework used in decisions about whether accidental hypothermia can be regarded as connected with relevant service for claims under VEA and MRCA sections specified in s 5. It therefore functions as an evidentiary standard: decision‑makers will assess whether at least one s 9 factor existed and was related to relevant service under s 10, applying the statutory definition and the balance of probabilities expressed in s 8.

Primary affected parties. The instrument expressly applies to claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies (s 5). That means veterans and former or current members of the Forces who bring claims under those statutory provisions are the primary persons affected. The Statement determines what medical facts and causal connections the Repatriation Medical Authority regards as satisfying the balance of probabilities test for accidental hypothermia in relation to relevant service (s 3; s 8).

Decision‑makers and administrators. Departments, assessors and adjudicators who process claims under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA must apply this Statement in assessing causal connection between accidental hypothermia and relevant service. The instrument does not itself set out the decision‑making process, but it is a legal input into adjudication of claims. Medical officers and independent medical examiners instructed in claims will need to address the Statement’s definitional criteria and factors, because the Authority’s view is that these factors supply the medical basis for causal findings on the balance of probabilities (s 8; s 9).

Medical practitioners and record‑keepers. Treating doctors, emergency clinicians, paramedics and coroners who record core body temperature, describe environmental exposure and document timing of treatment create the factual record claimants will use to satisfy the instrument’s factors (s 7(2)(a); s 9). The Statement’s emphasis on core temperature, environmental exposure at clinical onset, and the timing/appropriateness of clinical management makes clinical notes, temperature readings and transport/treatment timelines directly relevant to entitlement decisions.

Families and estates. Where death occurs, families, legal personal representatives and estates that make claims for death benefits will be affected because the Statement extends to death from a terminal event contributed to by accidental hypothermia (s 7(5)). The Schedule’s definition of terminal event lists specific proximate causes that must be considered when deciding whether hypothermia contributed to death.

Persons with co‑morbid conditions. The instrument excludes cases where a primary disturbance of thermoregulation exists, or where hypothermia has a toxicologic or pharmacologic cause, or was intentionally induced (s 7(2)(a)-(b)). Individuals with such primary disturbances, or with drug intoxication as the proximate cause of hypothermia, are therefore outside the core definitional scope. However, the instrument’s note in s 9 listing common non‑service exposure contexts (for example, substance intoxication, psychiatric disease, dementia, homelessness) indicates that the Authority recognises these as possible factual circumstances; liability still depends on whether a s 9 factor is related to relevant service under s 10.

Service types excluded from relevant service. The Schedule defines relevant service and explicitly excludes certain service classes: it defines eligible war service other than operational service and defence service other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service under the VEA, and peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1: relevant service). Persons whose service only falls within excluded categories are outside the Statement’s scope.

Other Statements and cross‑references. Where a s 9 factor refers to another injury or disease already covered by a Statement of Principles, that other Statement applies as in force from time to time (s 11). That will affect claimants who have linked pathologies; medical assessors must apply the other Statement’s tests where relevant.

Who does not bear new legal penalties. The Statement does not establish criminal or civil penalties, fines, administrative sanctions, or licensing consequences. It is an evidentiary instrument for claims, not an enforcement regulation. Consequently professionals and individuals affected will face evidentiary and administrative burdens rather than penalties arising directly from this Statement.

The instrument does not impose duties or confer rights in the classical sense of regulatory obligations or entitlements of conduct. Instead, it prescribes the medical facts and causal relationships the Repatriation Medical Authority regards as satisfying the balance of probabilities standard for accidental hypothermia to be connected with relevant service.

Duty to satisfy causation elements. For claimants, the practical requirement is to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that at least one of the factors in section 9 existed and that the factor was related to relevant service as defined in the Schedule (s 9; s 10). The two listed factors are: exposure to low environmental temperature at the time of clinical onset (s 9(1)); and inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (s 9(2)). The claimant bears the evidential burden of showing one or more of these factors existed and that it is connected to the relevant service period or activity.

Duty for decision‑makers to apply the Statement. Administrative decision‑makers considering claims under the specified sections of the VEA and MRCA must apply the Statement when assessing causal connection. The Authority expresses a medico‑scientific view that accidental hypothermia can be related to relevant service on the balance of probabilities (s 8). Where a decision depends on whether an applicant’s accidental hypothermia arose out of or was materially contributed to by relevant service, the Secretary, tribunal or administrative medical assessor should consider the Statement’s definitions and causation factors.

Clinical documentation and evidentiary duty for treating practitioners. Medical practitioners preparing records or medico‑legal reports will need to address the statutory elements: measured core temperature and timing, evidence of exposure to low environmental temperature at clinical onset, documentation of whether there was any primary thermoregulatory disturbance, exclusion of intentional induction or pharmacologic causes, and the timing and appropriateness of clinical management, including any delays (s 7(2); s 9(2)). These evidentiary elements are the practical items the Authority has identified as the basis for accepting or rejecting causal connection.

Right to the benefit of the Statement in claims. Where a claimant establishes the factual elements required by the Statement and connects them to relevant service, the medico‑scientific basis is in place for a finding that accidental hypothermia is related to service on the balance of probabilities (s 8; s 9; s 10). The instrument therefore creates an evidentiary pathway to accepted claims; it does not itself grant the final entitlement which remains subject to the statutory schemes of the VEA and MRCA.

Interaction obligations and cross‑reference duty. If a s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles, the decision‑maker must apply that other Statement as it stands from time to time (s 11). That creates a duty to check and integrate other Statements where the causal chain touches other listed conditions or injuries.

No enforcement penalties or compliance sanctions. The Statement confers no enforcement powers, and it does not prescribe compliance processes with statutory penalties. Duties under the instrument are evidentiary or administrative; rights are the potential entitlement outcomes in statutory claims if the medical and service nexus in the Statement is satisfied.

Temporal application duty. The Statement commences on 23 March 2026 (s 2). Where claims involve events before, during or after that date, the Statement’s applicability will depend on the claim provisions cited in s 5 and the effective date of the instrument. The instrument expressly repeals a previous Statement (No. 22 of 2018), so decision‑makers must use this instrument for claims on or after its commencement (s 4).

The Statement contains no provisions creating criminal offences, civil penalties, licensing conditions, administrative fines or coercive enforcement measures. It is a medical‑evidentiary instrument used to assess causation in claims under the VEA and the MRCA. The instrument therefore operates through evidentiary effect rather than enforcement mechanisms.

Enforcement mechanism by effect, not sanction. The Authority’s mechanism is to inform how decision‑makers determine causal connection in claims. This creates indirect consequences: if a claimant cannot establish a s 9 factor that is related to relevant service under s 10, a claim for service connection based on accidental hypothermia or death from it will not meet the Authority’s stated medical basis for acceptance on the balance of probabilities (s 8; s 9). The 'penalty' for failing to meet the Statement’s elements is therefore denial or non-acceptance of a claim, which is an administrative outcome within the VEA/MRCA systems rather than a statutory penalty imposed by this instrument.

No specified investigative powers. The Statement does not grant the Repatriation Medical Authority investigatory powers, nor does it set out procedures for medical examinations, subpoenas, or compulsory production of documents. The instrument is declaratory: it states the Authority’s view on causation criteria. Any investigative or enforcement steps are those available under the VEA, MRCA or other statutory schemes, not under this Statement itself. The instrument does not specify those routes.

No penalties for non‑compliance by medical practitioners or agencies. Treating clinicians and record‑keepers are not subject to new disciplinary sanctions by this instrument for failing to record the elements the Statement identifies. Their failure to produce adequate evidence will however have practical consequences for claim outcomes. These consequences are administrative within the claims process, not statutory sanctions created by the Statement.

Administrative reliance and decision‑making consequences. Decision‑makers who ignore the Statement’s definitions and factors when they are relevant to a claim risk having their decisions challenged under the procedural or merits review processes that apply to VEA and MRCA claims. The Statement is the Repatriation Medical Authority’s view on the medical‑scientific evidence and therefore will be a primary source when courts or tribunals examine the medical basis for decisions. The instrument itself does not create a right of legal challenge, nor specify appeal or review procedures.

No express role for penalties in wrongful claims. The Statement does not specify penalties for false claims, perjury, or fraudulent submissions relating to accidental hypothermia. Such matters are governed, if at all, by other provisions of the VEA, MRCA or general law; they do not arise from the Statement text.

This Statement is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and expressly applies to claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies (s 3; s 5). It therefore functions as a statutory medical standard embedded within the VEA/MRCA claims framework.

Dependence on parent statutes. The Statement gains legal effect only insofar as decision‑makers under the VEA and MRCA are required or permitted to treat Statements of Principles as authoritative medical guidance. The instrument itself does not amend the VEA or MRCA; it is a determination under the VEA statutory power (s 3). As a consequence, adjudicators must read this Statement in the context of the broader scheme and procedures of the VEA and MRCA, including any claims filing, evidence and review processes those Acts provide. The Statement does not reproduce those procedural provisions.

Cross‑references to other Statements of Principles. Section 11 provides that if a s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease already covered by another Statement of Principles made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, the factors in that other Statement apply as in force from time to time (s 11). This creates an inter‑instrument dependency: the medical analysis for accidental hypothermia may trigger application of other Statements, which themselves are instruments made under the same VEA provision. Decision‑makers must therefore cross‑check relevant Statements when causation involves co‑morbidities or referenced injuries.

Interaction with ICD coding systems. The instrument notes that while accidental hypothermia attracts ICD-10-AM code T68, for the purposes of this Statement the meaning is the statutory definition in s 7(2) (s 7(3)). It also specifies which edition of the ICD-10-AM is referenced (Tenth Edition, effective 1 July 2017) (s 7(4)). This means that ICD coding may provide background classification but does not override the statutory definition and criteria.

Scope limitations based on the Schedule definitions. The Schedule defines 'relevant service' and thereby limits which service categories fall within this Statement’s reach (Schedule 1: relevant service). Eligible war service is included only other than operational service; defence service is included only other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service; peacetime service under the MRCA is included. These definitions create interaction and exclusion effects with other legislation or regulations that define or treat operational, hazardous or nuclear test services differently.

No substitution of other legal standards. The instrument sets the medical criteria the Authority regards as meeting the balance of probabilities test. It does not supplant legal tests or statutory elements of entitlement in the VEA or MRCA; rather it supplies the medical component decision‑makers should use when assessing causation. For example, whether an injury "arises out of" service, or whether a death is compensable under the parent Acts, remains a statutory question to be answered by applying the VEA/MRCA using this Statement as the medical input.

Repeal of prior Statement. The instrument expressly repeals the earlier Statement of Principles concerning accidental hypothermia No. 22 of 2018 (s 4). The repeal has interactional consequences: decision‑makers must apply this Statement instead of the earlier one from the commencement date. Any decisions or appeals that reference the earlier instrument will need to consider which Statement was operative at the relevant time.

No detailed prescription of administrative remedies. The Statement does not set out appeals, merits review processes, or tribunal procedures. Those interactions occur under the parent Acts and associated tribunals or administrative review mechanisms, not in this instrument.

This instrument is the Statement of Principles concerning accidental hypothermia (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 24 of 2026). The document itself records a single express amendment action: it repeals the previous Statement of Principles concerning accidental hypothermia (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 22 of 2018), Federal Register of Legislation No. F2018L00201 (s 4).

Chronology and dates contained in the instrument. The instrument is dated 20 February 2026 (front matter) and states its commencement date is 23 March 2026 (s 2). It is made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (s 3). The authorising officer named in the instrument is Professor Terence Campbell AM in his capacity as Chairperson, on behalf of the Repatriation Medical Authority (front matter).

No other amendments recorded in the instrument. Other than the explicit repeal of the 2018 Statement, there are no further amendment notes, transitional provisions, savings clauses, or retrospective application statements within the text. The instrument therefore appears to operate as a straight repeal and replacement of the 2018 Statement from the commencement date.

Implications of repeal. The repeal clause (s 4) means the Authority intends this Statement to be the operative medico‑scientific instrument for accidental hypothermia from the stated commencement date. Decision‑makers assessing events after the commencement date should apply No. 24 of 2026. For events occurring before commencement, whether the earlier Statement or this one applies will depend on the claims process and which Statement was operative at the relevant time; the instrument contains no retroactivity clause, so the ordinary rules and any parent Act transitional provisions govern temporal application, but those rules are not set out in this instrument.

No amendment mechanism set out within the instrument. The Statement does not include an internal mechanism for amendment or review; presumably alterations would require a new Statement or changing the underlying statutory instrument procedure under s 196B(3) of the VEA. The text contains no timetable for review, no trigger events, and no periodic update requirement.

No register of prior changes. The instrument does not provide a history of changes, explanatory memorandum, or comparative note in the text supplied. The only explicit history provided is the identification and repeal of the 2018 instrument (s 4). Readers and administrators are therefore reliant on external registers or the Federal Register of Legislation to trace detailed amendment histories beyond what is stated.

The instrument itself does not mention any litigation, judicial interpretations, or case law. No cases, tribunal decisions, or judicial pronouncements are named or cited anywhere in the text. Consequently, within the contents of this Statement there is no record of litigation history to rely upon.

Implications of silence. The absence of litigation references in the instrument has several practical consequences for users. First, there is no guidance in the Statement on how courts or tribunals have interpreted similar Statements of Principles, the meaning of the statutory definitions, or the application of s 9 factors in contested cases. Second, decision‑makers and practitioners cannot rely on precedential statements contained within this instrument itself; they must look to the parent Acts, internal departmental guidance, tribunal decisions and case law outside the instrument. That material is not part of this Statement and is not reproduced here.

Potential for disputes not addressed in the text. The Statement sets out a medical evidentiary framework that is likely to be contested in close cases where the factual record is thin, for instance where environmental exposure or timing of clinical onset is uncertain, or where a primary disturbance of thermoregulation or toxicologic cause is disputed. The Statement does not set out how to resolve such disputes, nor does it identify the standard of proof beyond asserting the Authority’s view that the balance of probabilities supports the medico‑scientific nexus (s 8). Procedural rules for resolution of contested findings remain governed by the VEA and MRCA processes and relevant judicial review or merits review avenues, none of which are included in this instrument.

Administrative review and judicial appeal not specified. The instrument applies to claims under sections of the VEA and the MRCA but does not specify administrative review rights, merits review processes, or judicial appeal routes. Any litigation that arises from application of this Statement will proceed under the statutory appeal and review mechanisms provided by those Acts and the courts or tribunals with jurisdiction over VEA/MRCA disputes. The Statement provides the medical framework that parties will litigate over, but it does not itself furnish a litigation roadmap.

No reported decisions in the Statement. Because no cases are set out, there is no internal jurisprudence to cite as guidance for interpretation of key terms such as "low environmental temperature", "primary disturbance of thermoregulation", "appropriate clinical management" or "clinical worsening". These terms will require factual and medical evidence and, in contested matters, expert testimony to interpret. Any litigants or adjudicators facing disputes over these terms must therefore assemble or seek external medico‑legal and legal authorities, which are not contained in this instrument.

This Statement looks straightforward at first read, but it contains several narrow definitional and causal constraints that create practical risks for claimants, practitioners and decision‑makers. Below are the principal operational pitfalls, grounded in the instrument’s text.

Narrow statutory definition of accidental hypothermia. The instrument defines accidental hypothermia as an unintentional lowering of core body temperature to 35 degrees Celsius or lower due to exposure to low environmental temperature, in an individual without a primary disturbance of thermoregulation, and excludes intentional or toxicologic/pharmacologic causes (s 7(2)). A case lacking a recorded core temperature measurement at or below 35 degrees C may therefore be difficult to bring within this statutory definition. Similarly, if the medical record indicates a primary thermoregulatory disorder, intentional induction (for example therapeutic hypothermia), or drug/toxin involvement, the statutory definition excludes those cases outright.

ICD code is not determinative. Although accidental hypothermia is associated with ICD-10-AM code T68, the Statement makes clear that the statutory meaning for claims is the definition in s 7(2) and not mere diagnostic coding (s 7(3)). Practitioners who rely solely on ICD coding without addressing the statutory elements may find claims fail.

At least one s 9 factor required and link to relevant service mandatory. The Statement mandates that at least one factor in section 9 must exist and that factor must be related to relevant service under section 10. The two s 9 factors are narrow: exposure to low environmental temperature at the time of clinical onset (s 9(1)) and inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (s 9(2)). If a claimant cannot demonstrate either exposure at clinical onset or lack of access to appropriate management before worsening , and crucially, cannot show that either was related to relevant service , the Statement provides no medico‑scientific basis to accept the claim on the balance of probabilities (s 9; s 10).

Clinical worsening limitation. The clinical worsening factor (s 9(2)) has a special application limit: it applies only to material contribution to or aggravation of accidental hypothermia where the person’s accidental hypothermia was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service (s 10(2)). That creates a temporal and causal constraint that can exclude circumstances where hypothermia first arose out of service, or where timing does not align with the precise wording. Understanding whether hypothermia "arose out of" service is a separate factual/legal question; the Statement limits the clinical worsening consideration to the specific temporal scenarios stated.

Examples in the note do not equate to automatic service connection. Section 9 contains a Note listing examples of contexts where exposure to low environmental temperatures may occur, including homelessness, psychiatric disease, alcohol intoxication, or occupational exposure. These examples are descriptive and do not in themselves establish the required link to relevant service (s 9 Note). Practitioners and claimants must still demonstrate that the s 9 factor was related to relevant service under s 10.

Relevant service exclusions affect coverage. Schedule 1 defines 'relevant service' and excludes operational service for eligible war service, hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service for defence service, while including peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). Claims arising solely from excluded classes of service may fall outside this Statement’s applicability, producing unintuitive coverage gaps for some claimants.

Terminal event formulation may demand chain‑of‑causation evidence. Deaths are included only where death from a terminal event or condition was contributed to by the person’s accidental hypothermia (s 7(5)). Terminal event is defined to include pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure and cessation of brain function (Schedule 1). Establishing contribution to such terminal events often requires detailed medico‑legal evidence linking hypothermia to the proximate cause of death; a bare association or coincidental presence of hypothermia may be insufficient.

Cross‑application to other Statements may impose unfamiliar tests. Section 11 requires that where a s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles, that other Statement applies as in force from time to time (s 11). Practitioners must identify whether referenced injuries are governed by other Statements and then apply those potentially different tests and definitions, which can complicate claim presentation.

No procedural or evidentiary guidance provided. The instrument contains no procedural detail about how evidence should be presented, what weight should be given to certain types of evidence, or how to approach conflicting medical opinions. That lack of guidance creates uncertainty for claim preparation and decision‑making.

Relevance of timing and documentation. Because the Statement hinges on timing (clinical onset, pre‑worsening management) and medical measurements (core temperature), missing or ambiguous clinical records are a practical hazard. Absent contemporaneous recordings of core temperature or clear documentation of environmental exposure, claimants risk failing to establish a s 9 factor on the balance of probabilities.

Potential overlap with excluded pharmacologic/toxicologic causes. The instrument excludes hypothermia due to toxicologic or pharmacologic causes (s 7(2)(b)). Where intoxication or overdose is implicated in a hypothermia event, practitioners must distinguish whether hypothermia is primarily caused by intoxication (excluded) or whether environmental exposure is the primary cause. That factual distinction may be medically complex and contentious.

No penalties but administrative consequences. The Statement imposes no fines or criminal sanctions, but the procedural consequence of not meeting its criteria is administrative denial of claims. The absence of explicit appeal information in the text means affected persons must rely on the parent Acts for review rights.

This instrument does not contain procedural prescriptions but identifies the medical facts and causal linkages that claimants, treating clinicians and decision‑makers must assemble to satisfy the Authority’s balance of probabilities view. Compliance here means producing and assessing the specific evidence the Statement demands.

For claimants and representatives

• Identify and document at least one s 9 factor. The Statement requires at least one of the factors in section 9 to exist (s 9). Practically, this means assembling evidence of either: (1) exposure to low environmental temperature at the time of clinical onset; or (2) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening.

• Establish relation to relevant service. Any factor you rely upon must be related to relevant service under section 10. The Schedule defines relevant service; ensure your evidence links the exposure or management failure to eligible war service (other than operational service), defence service (other than hazardous and British nuclear test defence service), or peacetime service under the MRCA (s 10; Schedule 1).

• Medical records to obtain. Secure contemporaneous medical records that show core body temperature readings (<= 35 degrees Celsius), clinical notes on presenting environmental conditions, ambulance and hospital timelines documenting time to treatment, clinical impressions excluding primary thermoregulatory disorders, toxicology reports, and any notes on intent (to exclude intentional induction). Where death is claimed, obtain the death certificate, post‑mortem report, and any coroner findings showing contribution of hypothermia to a terminal event (s 7(2); s 7(5); Schedule 1).

• Ancillary evidence. Where environmental exposure is contested, collect witness statements, incident reports, military training or exercise logs, duty rosters, location/time stamps, weather data, and any operational orders that show exposure or conditions at the time of clinical onset.

• Address exclusions. If there is any suggestion of a primary disturbance of thermoregulation, intentional induction, or toxicologic/pharmacologic cause, secure specialist medical evidence that these are absent, or explain the temporal and causal sequence that shows environmental exposure was the primary cause (s 7(2)).

• Consider other Statements. If a s 9 factor refers to another injury or disease, identify the other Statement of Principles and ensure evidence satisfies its requirements (s 11).

For treating clinicians and experts

• Record core temperature and method. Document core body temperature measurements and the method of measurement. The statutory threshold is 35 degrees Celsius or lower (s 7(2)(a)). Clarity on whether the measurement was core temperature and how it was obtained is critical.

• Document environmental exposure. Provide clinical notes about the environment at the time of clinical onset: ambient temperature, duration of exposure, clothing status, immersion, wind chill, and any military or occupational context that links exposure to relevant service.

• Describe thermoregulatory status. Assess and document whether there is evidence of a primary disturbance of thermoregulation, and whether intoxication, pharmacologic agents or therapeutic induction are implicated. State clearly if such causes have been excluded, and on what basis (s 7(2)).

• Timelines for management and worsening. When inability to obtain appropriate clinical management is asserted, provide records showing timing between discovery/presentation and receipt of appropriate care, reasons for delays, and the clinical trajectory demonstrating worsening. Explain how lack of appropriate care materially contributed to outcome (s 9(2); s 10(2)).

• Causation opinions linked to terminal events. For fatal cases, provide an opinion on whether accidental hypothermia contributed to the terminal event listed in the Schedule (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function) and explain the pathophysiological mechanism by which hypothermia contributed to the death (s 7(5); Schedule 1).

For decision‑makers and assessors

• Apply the statutory definition first. Use the definition in s 7(2) as the starting point rather than ICD coding alone (s 7(3)). Verify core temperature readings and the absence of excluded causes.

• Test for at least one s 9 factor and relation to service. Ensure that one or more of the s 9 factors is present and that the factor is related to relevant service under s 10. If the s 9 factor refers to another Statement of Principles, apply that Statement as in force (s 11).

• Address temporal limits on clinical worsening. Where reliance is placed on inability to obtain appropriate clinical management, confirm the condition was suffered or contracted before or during (but not arising out of) relevant service, and assess whether clinical worsening was materially contributed to or aggravated by the lack of care (s 10(2)).

• Seek expert evidence where necessary. Where core facts are medically complex (for example, distinguishing primary thermoregulatory disorders from environment‑driven hypothermia, or assessing contribution to terminal events), obtain or commission specialist medical opinions and tie those opinions to the statutory criteria.

• Check service classification. Confirm whether the claimant’s service falls within the Schedule’s definition of relevant service; be alert to excluded service categories such as operational service for eligible war service or hazardous service for defence service (Schedule 1). Where service status is contested, resolve that as a jurisdictional preliminary issue.

Administrative and documentation best practice

• Maintain contemporaneous timelines and chain of custody for medical records, ambulance reports and coroner files. Because the Statement turns on timing and measurements, the integrity and availability of these documents materially affect outcomes.

• Flag cross‑instrument issues early. If another Statement of Principles may apply, identify this at an early stage and assemble the necessary evidence to satisfy that other Statement as well.

• Be proactive on gaps. Where clinical records are incomplete, obtain secondary evidence (witness statements, unit logs, weather records) and expert extrapolations that can bridge evidentiary gaps. Make explicit the uncertainties in medico‑legal opinions and how they affect the balance of probabilities finding.

Administrative dates and repeal consequences

• Use this Statement for claims on or after 23 March 2026 (s 2) and note that it repeals the previous Statement No. 22 of 2018 (s 4). For events straddling the repeal/commencement date, check which Statement was operative at the relevant time and whether transitional rules in the parent Acts apply; the Statement itself contains no transitional rules.

Final procedural note

• The Statement is an evidentiary standard for causation. Compliance means assembling and presenting the specific medical and service‑linking evidence required by s 7, s 9 and s 10. It does not replace the substantive entitlement tests and procedural rules of the VEA and MRCA, which govern the overall claim outcome and any available review or appeal mechanisms.