Statement of Principles concerning allergic rhinitis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 111 of 2022)

The core legal and medical concepts in the SoP are set out in s 7 and the Schedule 1 dictionary. They structure the causal inquiry and limit what counts as allergic rhinitis for the SoP’s purposes. The principal concepts are:

• Allergic rhinitis, as defined, means symptomatic inflammation of the nasal mucosa associated with allergen exposure and mediated by an immunoglobulin E (IgE) allergic response (s 7(2)(a)). The definition explicitly includes intermittent (seasonal), local, occupational, and persistent (perennial) allergic rhinitis (s 7(2)(b)), and explicitly excludes allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, non-allergic rhinitis, and vasomotor rhinitis (s 7(2)(c)). The SoP also notes the typical symptoms and the possible coexistence with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (s 7(2) notes).

• ICD coding is referenced: allergic rhinitis attracts ICD-10-AM codes J30.1-J30.4 but the meaning for the SoP is the textual definition in s 7(2) (s 7(3)-(4)). The SoP thus ties clinical coding to, but does not replace, the statutory textual definition.

• Death from allergic rhinitis is included when death is from a terminal event or condition contributed to by the person’s allergic rhinitis; terminal events are defined in the Schedule to include pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, and cessation of brain function (s 7(5); Schedule 1).

• Factors that will raise a reasonable hypothesis are listed in s 9. They are conjunctively expressed as “at least one of the following factors must as a minimum exist” and consist of: (1) exposure to an allergenic stimulus within 24 hours before clinical onset; (2) a sensitising exposure to an allergen before clinical onset; (3) exposure to an allergenic stimulus within 24 hours before clinical worsening; and (4) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for allergic rhinitis (s 9(1)-(4).

• The definitions in the Schedule give meaning to “allergenic stimulus” (an exogenous antigen capable of stimulating a type‑I hypersensitivity reaction through IgE, and associated with onset of symptoms, confirmed by specific allergy testing: positive skin prick, positive serum specific IgE, or nasal specific allergen challenge), and “sensitising exposure to an allergen” (an exposure without symptoms after which a subsequent exposure to the same allergen produces clinical onset within 24 hours) (Schedule 1). These definitions tie evidential quality (testing or careful temporal sequencing) to the listed factors.

• Relevant service for the SoP is defined to include multiple service categories under the VEA and MRCA (operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence under the VEA; warlike and non-warlike service under the MRCA; Schedule 1). Section 10 requires that any factor established under s 9 be related to the person’s relevant service.

• Cross‑instrument interaction is dealt with in s 11: where a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease already covered by another SoP the factors in that other SoP apply according to its terms.

These concepts allocate the evidential and medical questions decision-makers must answer. In practical terms, “allergenic stimulus” and “sensitising exposure” are technical thresholds requiring objective allergy testing or clear temporal exposure histories. The 24‑hour windows in ss 9(1) and 9(3) are precise temporal limits on proximate exposure relative to onset or worsening. The inclusion of inability to obtain appropriate clinical management as a factor (s 9(4)) recognises access to care as part of the causal inquiry where relevant.

This SoP affects three primary categories of actors and several secondary actors by changing the evidentiary and definitional framework used in assessing certain compensation and entitlement claims.

Primary affected parties

• Claimants , veterans, members of Peacekeeping Forces, or members of the Forces whose claims fall to be determined under section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA (s 5; Schedule 1 defines “relevant service”). The SoP governs what is required to raise a reasonable hypothesis that allergic rhinitis or death from it is connected to relevant service. Claimants with allergic rhinitis will therefore be directly affected because the SoP prescribes which factors and what kinds of evidence (for example, allergy testing) are material (s 9; Schedule 1).

• Decision-makers administering the VEA and MRCA claims , those statutory decision-makers responsible for accepting or rejecting claims under the relevant sections must apply the SoP as the authoritative statement of factors that raise a reasonable hypothesis. While the instrument itself does not name the decision-making bodies, its express application clause (s 5) makes it the operative SoP for claims to which those statutory provisions apply.

• The Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) , as the maker of the instrument, the RMA’s determinative view (s 8) about the existence of sound medical‑scientific evidence informs the medical standard used in claim assessments. The RMA both sets the standards and controls future revisions or repeals, as shown by the repeal of the prior SoP (s 4).

Secondary affected parties

• Medical practitioners and specialists , clinicians who provide diagnoses, allergy testing (skin prick, serum allergen-specific IgE, nasal challenge) and clinical management reports will be engaged more frequently to generate the specific medical evidence the SoP foregrounds (Schedule 1 def of allergenic stimulus). Their clinical records and expert opinions will be material to determining whether s 9 factors are met.

• Defence and employer units , units and administrators responsible for maintaining service records, duty logs and exposure histories will be called upon to provide evidence linking exposure events to the person’s relevant service because s 10 requires that any established factor in s 9 be related to the person’s relevant service.

• Insurers and compensation payors , while the SoP itself does not mention budgets, agencies responsible for paying entitlements under the VEA or MRCA will be affected by the SoP insofar as it changes the baseline for entitlement acceptance, potentially affecting claim acceptance rates and consequent payments.

Geographic and temporal scope

• The SoP applies to claims that fall under the specified statutory sections; it commenced 21 November 2022 and repealed the prior SoP for the same condition (s 2, s 4). It does not by its text extend beyond those claims or create private tort rights; it is an administrative instrument to be applied in the statutory claims processes specified (s 5).

As a result, anyone preparing, adjudicating or supporting claims for allergic rhinitis or death from allergic rhinitis in the veterans’ compensation context must align evidentiary strategies with the definitions, time windows and testing requirements the SoP imposes.

The instrument itself is not a statute that imposes duties enforceable in private law; rather it functions as an administrative instrument setting the criteria for raising a reasonable hypothesis in statutory claims processes. The key practical duties and rights that flow from the instrument, as things decision-makers and claimants must or may do, are as follows.

Decision-maker duties and obligations

• Apply the SoP’s factors when determining whether a reasonable hypothesis is raised. Section 5 explicitly confines the SoP’s application to claims under s 120A of the VEA or s 338 of the MRCA. Decision-makers have an obligation to consider whether at least one of the factors in s 9 exists, and whether any such factor is related to the person’s relevant service as required by s 10.

• Give effect to the RMA’s determination that there is sound medical‑scientific evidence supporting the causal relationships described (s 8). This is a procedural direction: the RMA’s view as recorded in the instrument is the evidentiary baseline decision-makers must work from.

Claimant obligations and practical rights

• Provide evidence capable of satisfying one or more of the factors in s 9. The SoP identifies evidentially specific thresholds: for example, to rely on “allergenic stimulus” a claimant will need evidence of specific allergy testing (Schedule 1: positive skin prick test, positive serum allergen-specific IgE, or nasal specific allergen challenge). The claimant therefore bears the practical burden of adducing medical evidence satisfying the definitions in the Schedule.

• Establish relationship to relevant service. Section 10 requires any factor identified in s 9 to be related to the person’s relevant service as defined in Schedule 1. A claimant has the right to have their service records and exposure histories considered when asserting that an exposure occurred in the course of relevant service.

• Where a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another SoP, the claimant may rely on the factors in that other SoP instead or as well (s 11). This creates a right to cross-apply other SoPs where relevant.

Evidence and procedural implication

• The SoP’s definitions impose evidentiary characteristics: “allergenic stimulus” depends on objective allergy testing, and the 24-hour windows in ss 9(1) and 9(3) impose a precise temporal relationship between exposure and clinical onset or worsening. The claimant’s practical duty is to provide medical and temporal evidence meeting those characteristics.

Limitations on duties and rights

• The SoP is framed in terms of raising a reasonable hypothesis. It does not itself determine entitlement. The instrument establishes the threshold for a causal link in the claims process; the ultimate legal decision on entitlement under the VEA or MRCA requires further statutory steps beyond the SoP. The instrument does not create standalone private rights or obligations outside the scope of the specified claims processes.

In short, the SoP delegates to decision-makers the duty to apply specified factors and definitions when assessing causal connection. Claimants have the practical obligation to provide medical and service-linking evidence meeting the SoP’s definitions and time limits, including objective allergy testing where required by the Schedule.

The instrument does not create criminal offences, civil penalties, or express enforcement provisions within its text. It is an administrative Statement of Principles made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA for the purpose of assessing claims. Therefore, enforcement and consequence mechanisms are those inherent to the claims and administrative decision-making processes under the VEA and MRCA rather than penalties imposed by the SoP itself.

How enforcement operates in practice

• Application in claims adjudication. The primary enforcement mechanism is administrative: decision-makers will enforce the SoP by using it as the standard for determining whether a reasonable hypothesis exists that allergic rhinitis or death from allergic rhinitis is connected to relevant service (s 5, s 9, s 10). If the required factor(s) are not established according to the SoP, a claimant’s claim may be rejected on causation grounds; conversely, if the factor(s) are established and related to relevant service, that will raise the reasonable hypothesis in the claimant’s favour.

• Evidential consequences. Because the SoP attaches precise evidential requirements (for example, allergy testing methods in the Schedule), failure to provide evidence that meets those requirements will materially affect the outcome of a claim. The SoP thereby creates practical consequences for claim acceptance and entitlement payments under the VEA and MRCA processes, though these are administrative financial consequences rather than fines or sanctions imposed by the SoP itself.

Limitations and absence of express penalties

• No express sanction for non-compliance. The instrument contains no clause imposing penalties for failing to obtain or present the specified tests, nor does it prescribe disciplinary measures against medical practitioners or agencies for decisions relating to the SoP.

• Reliance on overarching statutory frameworks. Any formal penalties, appeals processes, review rights, or judicial review mechanisms that may follow from adverse decisions are those provided in the VEA, MRCA and associated administrative law regimes, not the SoP text. The SoP does not itself create a new enforcement pathway.

Practical enforcement risk and evidential enforcement

• The SoP functions as an authoritative evidentiary gate. The practical enforcement effect arises from decision-makers accepting or rejecting claims based on whether the SoP’s factors are met. This creates incentives for claimants to procure the medical testing and documentary evidence the Schedule references, and for administrators to scrutinise the temporal relationships the SoP prescribes (for example, the 24-hour windows in s 9(1) and s 9(3)).

In short, the instrument enforces its standards through administrative application in the statutory claim processes; it does not itself impose penalties, but non-satisfaction of its factors will have the consequence of a failure to raise the reasonable hypothesis necessary to progress or succeed in a claim.

The SoP is an administrative instrument made under the VEA. Its interaction with other laws is primarily internal to the veterans’ compensation framework and to other Statements of Principles. The instrument’s text sets out how it sits in that legal ecosystem.

Interaction with the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and MRCA

• Source and scope. The SoP is expressly made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA (s 3). It applies to claims to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies (s 5). Consequently the SoP functions as a statutory medical instrument within the procedural architecture of entitlement determinations under those Acts. It is not a free‑standing statute; it is an instrument that decision-makers apply as part of the statutory causation analysis required by the VEA and MRCA claims processes.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles

• Cross-reference and primacy. Section 11 provides a mechanism for cross‑instrument interaction: if a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease for which a Statement of Principles already exists under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, then the factors in that other Statement of Principles “apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time.” This means that where overlap exists , for example, where allergic rhinitis symptoms or an exposure are also relevant to another SoP , the other SoP’s factors govern that aspect of causation according to its own terms.

• Repeal of prior SoP. The instrument expressly repeals the earlier Statement of Principles concerning allergic rhinitis No. 22 of 2014 (s 4). That repeal means that, from its commencement date (21 November 2022), the current SoP replaces the prior one for the purposes of claims within the specified statutory provisions. Claims or decisions previously considered under the 2014 SoP will now be governed by this instrument.

Interaction with medical classification codes

• ICD-10-AM codes are referenced in s 7(3)-(4). The SoP notes that allergic rhinitis attracts particular ICD codes (J30.1-J30.4) but states that “in applying this Statement of Principles the meaning of allergic rhinitis is that given in subsection (2).” Thus medical coding may be used as a descriptor, but the statutory definition in s 7(2) controls the SoP’s reach. This clarifies that external medical classification does not override the textual definition.

Interaction with administrative and evidentiary law

• The SoP prescribes evidential qualities (for example, specific testing in the Schedule). Decision-makers must therefore interpret and apply those evidentiary specifications within the procedural rules of the VEA and MRCA. The instrument does not itself specify the procedural mechanics for admitting or assessing evidence; those mechanics are provided by the applying Acts and by administrative practice.

Limits on interaction with other laws

• No express preemption or alteration of non-veterans’ law. The SoP’s language does not purport to affect private law obligations, tort claims, employment law, workers’ compensation schemes or health regulatory regimes outside the VEA and MRCA claims framework. Its operative effect is confined to the claims specified in s 5 and to the statutory role of SoPs under s 196B(2).

Practically, the SoP interacts with other administrative instruments and medical evidence regimes by: replacing the prior SoP for allergic rhinitis; providing definitional and evidential criteria that must be read together with the VEA and MRCA provisions that govern entitlement determinations; and allowing cross-application of other SoPs where factors overlap (s 11). The SoP signals the RMA’s chosen medical thresholds and requires decision-makers to reconcile those thresholds with other applicable instruments and administrative procedures.

The instrument records a limited amendment history within its own text. The principal historical facts it contains are:

• Date of instrument and commencement. The SoP was dated 21 October 2022 and commenced on 21 November 2022 (s 1; s 2). Those dates indicate when the Repatriation Medical Authority finalised the instrument and when it took effect for eligible claims.

• Repeal of the prior SoP. Section 4 expressly repeals the Statement of Principles concerning allergic rhinitis No. 22 of 2014 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2014L00306) which had previously been made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA. The instrument therefore supersedes the 2014 SoP from its commencement date. No other prior versions are referenced in the text.

• No further amendments recorded in the instrument. The SoP as provided does not list any subsequent variations or amendments beyond the repeal of the 2014 instrument. There is no schedule of earlier amendments to this instrument, nor any textual note within the instrument of a history of partial amendments. The document is a stand-alone SoP replacing the previous 2014 instrument.

Implications of the recorded amendment history

• Replacement of earlier standard. The explicit repeal of the 2014 SoP means that any claims assessed after 21 November 2022 must be assessed under the criteria and definitions set out in this 2022 instrument, unless otherwise provided by statute or later instruments. The repeal points to a discrete policy update by the RMA embodied in the current text.

• No recorded incremental amendments. Because the instrument does not itself include subsequent amendments, the SoP as presented should be treated as the current operative instrument as at the dates recorded in its text. Any later repeal, variation or replacement would appear in later instruments made under subsection 196B(2) or associated legislative change; such further changes are not recorded in this instrument.

• Cross-reference stability. The SoP’s s 11 mechanism contemplates that other SoPs may be amended “as in force from time to time,” but this instrument does not itself document any such external amendment history. Users need to check the current versions of any other SoPs that might be implicated by s 11.

In short, the instrument’s internal amendment history is confined to its date, commencement and the express repeal of the 2014 SoP. The instrument does not record other amendments or an ongoing amendment log within its own text.

The Statement of Principles itself does not record any litigation history. The instrument is a statutory administrative instrument that sets evidentiary factors for claims under the VEA and MRCA; it does not include a catalogue of cases or judicial interpretations. The document therefore contains no explicit references to litigation, judicial review or case law concerning its content.

Practical consequences of the absence of recorded litigation history

• No instrument-contained precedent. Because the instrument does not contain judicial interpretations or references to cases, practitioners and decision-makers must rely on the text of the SoP, the provisions of the VEA and MRCA, administrative practice, and any external jurisprudence that may exist. The absence of litigation history in the instrument means users should search external legal and administrative records for cases that interpret either the previous 2014 SoP or the concepts in this 2022 instrument. The SoP itself provides no such material.

• Predictability and uncertainty. The lack of recorded litigation in the instrument produces two effects. First, the instrument’s text is the primary authoritative source within the administrative scheme for allergic rhinitis claims. Second, where the SoP contains precise but potentially contestable elements , for example, the 24-hour temporal windows in ss 9(1) and 9(3) or the meaning of “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” in s 9(4) , the absence of settled judicial interpretation recorded in the instrument leaves scope for dispute and for future litigation to clarify contentious points. The instrument does not itself indicate whether such disputes have already been litigated elsewhere.

• Interaction with other SoPs. Section 11 contemplates reliance on other SoPs where a factor refers to another injury or disease. If litigation has arisen under those other SoPs, their jurisprudence may be relevant to how s 11 is applied, but this instrument does not record that jurisprudence.

Advice to practitioners in the absence of instrument-contained litigation history

• Treat the SoP text as the operative administrative framework. Until judicial clarifications emerge, decision-makers and advisers should apply the definitions and factors literally and precisely as written, particularly where the Schedule supplies objective testing requirements.

• Expect potential challenge points. Areas likely to attract dispute include the interpretation and application of the 24-hour windows, standards for confirming an “allergenic stimulus” (what qualifies as acceptable testing and how contemporaneity is established), and the evidential threshold for “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management.” Because the instrument is silent on litigation history, these are areas where future administrative appeals or litigation may develop.

In summary, the instrument records no litigation history. That absence means its plain text governs current administrative assessment, while also creating room for future legal contestation on ambiguous or operationally difficult points when decisions applying the SoP are challenged.

This instrument contains tightly worded definitions and temporal thresholds that produce several practical pitfalls for claimants, medical advisers and decision-makers. The following are specific areas where practitioners should be cautious, all grounded in the instrument’s text.

1. The 24-hour rule is strict and appears in several places (s 9(1), s 9(3), Schedule 1 definition of sensitising exposure). The SoP requires that exposure to an allergenic stimulus occur within the 24 hours before clinical onset (s 9(1)) and before clinical worsening (s 9(3)), and that a sensitising exposure be followed by clinical onset of allergic rhinitis within 24 hours of a subsequent exposure to the same allergen (Schedule 1). Practical consequence: temporal precision is required. Absent contemporaneous clinical notes or exposure records showing that the exposure and onset fit within 24 hours, a claimant risks failing to meet these factors.

2. “Allergenic stimulus” requires specific testing (Schedule 1). The definition requires confirmation by specific allergy testing, including a positive skin prick test, a positive serum test for allergen-specific IgE, or a nasal specific allergen challenge. Practical consequence: anecdotal accounts of exposure without objective test confirmation will not meet the Schedule’s definition of allergenic stimulus. Decision-makers will likely look for those tests in medical evidence.

3. “Sensitising exposure” is conceptually specific (Schedule 1). The definition prescribes a two-stage sequence: an initial exposure without symptoms and a subsequent exposure to the same allergen producing clinical onset within 24 hours. Practical consequence: claimants and clinicians must document the earlier exposure as asymptomatic and identify the same allergen on later exposure. Absent that sequencing, the SoP’s sensitising exposure factor may not be available.

4. “Inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” is undefined in the instrument (s 9(4)). The SoP provides no substantive explanation of what counts as “appropriate” management or what threshold of inability is required. Practical consequence: this creates ambiguity. Decision-makers will need to assess evidence of access barriers, system failures, or clinical unavailability; claimants will need to provide documentary evidence of attempts to obtain care and the reasons care was not obtained.

5. Relationship to service is a necessary overlay (s 10). Any factor under s 9 must be related to the person’s relevant service. For factors in s 9(3) and s 9(4) there is an additional limit that they apply only to material contribution or aggravation where allergic rhinitis was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service (s 10(2)). Practical consequence: for pre-existing allergic rhinitis aggravated by later exposures, the claimant must demonstrate material contribution or aggravation and show the condition was present before or during service yet did not arise out of service. This creates a nuanced causal framing distinct from a situation where rhinitis arose out of service.

6. Cross-SoP references can complicate evidence strategies (s 11). If a s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, the other SoP’s factors apply. Practical consequence: practitioners must identify whether any part of a claimant’s case intersects with other SoPs and then assemble evidence that satisfies those other instruments’ requirements, which may differ in test types, timeframes or medical definitions.

7. ICD codes are informative but not determinative (s 7(3)-(4)). Although the SoP notes relevant ICD-10-AM codes, it emphasises the textual definition in s 7(2) governs. Practical consequence: a clinical record that simply cites an ICD code without supporting evidence that meets the SoP’s textual definition (for example, IgE mediation) may be insufficient.

8. Death claims require demonstration of contribution to a terminal event (s 7(5); Schedule 1). The SoP permits inclusion of death from a terminal event contributed to by allergic rhinitis, but the Schedule defines terminal events in a list that includes pneumonia and respiratory failure. Practical consequence: a claimant pursuing a death claim must link allergic rhinitis as contributing to one of these terminal events, which involves medical causal proof beyond a mere diagnosis of allergic rhinitis.

9. Repeal of the 2014 SoP may affect legacy claims (s 4). Claims assessed under the earlier SoP may be re-evaluated under this instrument for new or continuing adjudications post-commencement. Practical consequence: practitioners should review prior decisions to determine whether the new definitions and factors alter claim prospects.

10. No explicit procedural or evidentiary rules are set out in the SoP. The instrument specifies factors and definitions but does not prescribe the procedural mechanics for evidentiary admissibility or the weight to be given to tests and reports. Practical consequence: how strictly decision-makers apply the testing and time thresholds may vary in practice and in the absence of recorded case law could be contested.

Each of these “gotchas” arises directly from the instrument’s text and will require targeted evidence gathering, precise medical documentation and careful alignment of the causation narrative to the SoP’s defined factors and temporal thresholds.

Compliance in this context means assembling and presenting the evidence and arguments necessary to satisfy one or more of the factors in s 9 and to show that any established factor is related to the person's relevant service under s 10. The instrument’s text suggests concrete, practicable steps a claimant or their adviser should take.

1. Identify the operative statutory claim route and confirm the SoP applies. Confirm the claim falls under s 120A of the VEA or s 338 of the MRCA (s 5). If the claim does not fall under those provisions the SoP will not be the operative instrument for the reasonable hypothesis inquiry.

2. Match the medical presentation to the SoP definition. Ensure the clinical diagnosis matches the SoP’s definition in s 7(2): symptomatic inflammation of the nasal mucosa associated with allergen exposure and mediated by an IgE response, and that the presentation is not one of the excluded conditions (for example, non-allergic rhinitis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis). Explicitly document signs, symptoms and tests that support the IgE-mediated mechanism referenced in s 7(2)(a).

3. Obtain and document specific allergy testing where relevant. If relying on an “allergenic stimulus” (s 9(1), s 9(3)) ensure specific allergy testing is undertaken and recorded in medical reports, because the Schedule requires confirmation by a positive skin prick test, a positive serum test for allergen-specific IgE, or a nasal specific allergen challenge (Schedule 1 definition of allergenic stimulus). Ensure test reports identify the allergen(s) implicated and link them to the reported clinical episodes.

4. Prepare contemporaneous temporal evidence to meet the 24-hour windows. For factors requiring a 24-hour link (s 9(1), s 9(3), Schedule 1 for sensitising exposure), assemble medical records, incident reports, duty logs, exposure reports and witness statements showing the precise timing of exposure and onset or worsening. Where the case relies on sensitising exposure, document the asymptomatic initial exposure and the subsequent exposure that produced clinical onset within 24 hours, including identification of the same allergen.

5. For claims invoking inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s 9(4)), collect records of attempts to access care. Document dates of requests for treatment, referrals, wait times, refusals, resource limitations, geographic barriers, and clinical correspondence that shows why care was not obtained or was delayed. Because the SoP does not define “appropriate”, be specific and evidential about clinical standards and the local or temporary barriers encountered.

6. Establish the service connection required by s 10. Link the exposure or the aggravating event to the person’s relevant service as defined in Schedule 1 (operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence under the VEA; warlike and non-warlike service under the MRCA). Provide service records, deployment logs, unit incident reports and contemporaneous documentation demonstrating that the exposure occurred in the course of relevant service.

7. Where overlapping conditions or exposures are covered by other SoPs, identify and satisfy those SoPs. Section 11 requires application of factors from other SoPs if a s 9 factor refers to another covered disease. Search and apply the relevant SoP(s), and gather evidence that meets their specific tests and definitions.

8. Prepare medical expert evidence that ties diagnosis, tests and temporal sequence to the SoP. A medical report should explicitly address the SoP factors, state whether specific allergy testing confirms an allergenic stimulus, comment on whether exposures meet the 24-hour windows, and assess whether allergic rhinitis materially contributed to any terminal event in a death claim (s 7(5); Schedule 1 terminal events). Experts should reference the SoP’s definitions and explain any gaps or uncertainties.

9. Address ICD coding but do not rely on it alone. Where records refer to ICD-10-AM codes (s 7(3)), ensure these entries are supported by clinical evidence that meets the textual definition in s 7(2), because the SoP directs that its meaning is the textual definition rather than sole reliance on codes.

10. Anticipate cross-examination on timing and testing. Because the SoP’s factors are precise, expect decision-makers and reviewers to probe timing, test validity and service linkage; prepare corroborating documentary evidence and records of attempts to obtain care where s 9(4) is relied upon.

11. Consider the effect of the repeal of the 2014 SoP. For cases that began under the previous instrument, reassess evidence in light of the current SoP’s definitions and factors to determine whether new or additional evidence is required post-21 November 2022 (s 4).

12. Maintain clear records of all evidence chain. Ensure that clinical records, test results, service records, exposure logs and correspondence are date-stamped and organized so they can be mapped directly to the SoP’s specific factors and timeframes.

Following these practical steps aligns the evidentiary approach to the SoP’s text. Because the instrument sets objective testing and temporal requirements, claimants should prioritise obtaining the specified allergy tests, contemporaneous documentation of exposures and onset, and clear service‑linking records to satisfy the thresholds the SoP establishes.