Statement of Principles concerning distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 4 of 2025)

The Statement’s core concepts are (i) a case definition of the condition; (ii) a list of factors that, if proven and tied to relevant service, support a finding on the balance of probabilities that the condition is connected with service; and (iii) an express statement of the burden/standard of proof and its medical‑scientific basis.

1. Case definition: The Statement defines distal biceps brachii tendinopathy as a clinically symptomatic inflammation or degeneration of the distal biceps brachii tendon and expressly includes partial or complete tears of that tendon (subsection 6(2)(a)-(b)). It excludes biciptitoradial bursitis unless it is accompanied by distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (subsection 6(2)(c)). This places primary emphasis on a clinical diagnosis rather than radiological or laboratory findings alone, by using the term “clinically symptomatic”.

2. Inclusion of death: The Statement extends to “death from distal biceps brachii tendinopathy” where a terminal event or condition was contributed to by the person’s tendinopathy (Death from distal biceps brachii tendinopathy). The Schedule defines “terminal event” narrowly by example (pneumonia; respiratory failure; cardiac arrest; circulatory failure; cessation of brain function). That linkage requires evidence that the tendinopathy contributed to a proximate or ultimate cause of death.

3. Standard of proof and causal framing: The Repatriation Medical Authority states that, on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is more probable than not that distal biceps brachii tendinopathy and death from it can be related to relevant service (Basis for determining the factors). The instrument therefore formalises the “balance of probabilities” standard as the threshold for accepting service connection in claims that fall within the relevant statutory provisions.

4. Factual factors that support causal connection: Section 8 sets out three distinct factual scenarios, any one of which, if present and related to relevant service, suffices to establish a probable connection with service on the balance of probabilities:

   • sudden forceful extension of the elbow, during elbow flexion, on the affected side at the time of clinical onset (section 8(1)); examples are provided (catching a heavy load with a bent arm; a fall on an outstretched hand; contact sports);
   • abusing anabolic steroids at the time of clinical onset (section 8(2));
   • inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for distal biceps brachii tendinopathy before clinical worsening (section 8(3)).

5. Relation-to-service constraint: Any factor relied upon must be related to the person’s “relevant service” as defined in Schedule 1: eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA; defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA; or peacetime service under the MRCA. Further, section 9(2) limits the operation of the management‑access factor (section 8(3)) to material contribution to, or aggravation of, the condition where the condition was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the relevant service.

6. Interaction with other Statements: If a factor in section 8 refers to an injury or disease already covered by another Statement of Principles, then the factors in that other instrument apply, as in force from time to time (section 10). This creates a normative chain: where the causation factor points to another diagnostic category, the other Statement’s published factors are imported.

7. Defined terms and limits: The Schedule includes the definitions that control the instrument, notably “distal biceps brachii tendinopathy,see subsection 6(2)”, MRCA, VEA, “relevant service” and “terminal event” with explicit examples. The Schedule supplies the boundaries required to interpret the inclusion of death and the scope of relevant service.

These concepts structure how decision-makers assessing claims under s120B VEA or s339 MRCA must consider medical causation on the balance of probabilities, by reference to a small, enumerated list of factual circumstances that, when both proven and tied to relevant service, will satisfy the Statement’s causal threshold.

The instrument applies to claimants in two statutory pathways: those making claims to which section 120B of the VEA applies and those making claims to which section 339 of the MRCA applies (Application). Practically, that means the Statement is aimed at veterans and serving members for whom the legal definitions of “relevant service” in the Schedule are engaged.

The Schedule defines “relevant service” to mean one of three types of service:

• eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA;
• defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA; or
• peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1 - Dictionary, Definitions).

Thus, claimants whose service falls within those categories are the group for whom the Statement is directly operable. The Statement is not framed as a public-health or worker‑compensation instrument; its application is limited to the statutory claims environment referenced. It does not, on its face, alter entitlement rules or payment schedules; rather, it supplies a medicolegal basis for deciding whether distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (or death from it) can be considered connected with the person’s relevant service for the purposes of the specified claim provisions.

Directly affected individuals therefore include:

• persons diagnosed with clinically symptomatic distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (including partial or complete tendon tears) who allege that the condition is related to their relevant service, and
• persons for whom death was caused by a terminal event to which distal biceps brachii tendinopathy contributed, where the deceased had relevant service.

Ancillary affected parties include medical practitioners preparing medical evidence and medico-legal reports, claims assessors and caseworkers applying the Statement when deciding claims under the cited statutory provisions, and potentially other Repatriation Medical Authority Statements where cross-reference arises (section 10). The Statement also affects evidentiary collection and presentation: the limited set of listed factors implies that claimants and their advisors must collect evidence aligned to those enumerated mechanisms (sudden forceful extension, anabolic steroid abuse at the time of clinical onset, inability to obtain appropriate clinical management prior to worsening) and to the relation-to-service requirement in section 9.

The instrument excludes certain clinical presentations from its scope. Specifically, biciptitoradial bursitis is not within the Statement unless it is accompanied by distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (subsection 6(2)(c)). That exclusion narrows the diagnostic range of the Statement and signals that claims based solely on isolated bursitis are not covered by this instrument.

Finally, where a claimed causal factor points to an injury or disease for which another Statement has been made, the claimant is affected by the terms of that other Statement as they stand from time to time (section 10). This means claimants may need to consider multiple Statements when assembling evidence, depending on the factual causal chain asserted.

This Statement of Principles is not itself drafted as a statute imposing administrative duties or conferring procedural rights; nevertheless, within the claims framework it establishes several legal necessities that claimants and decision-makers must observe.

Standard of proof and claimant evidential duty

• The Statement expressly frames its conclusions on the “balance of probabilities” standard: the Repatriation Medical Authority is of the view that it is more probable than not that the condition and death from it can be related to relevant service (Basis for determining the factors). That standard informs the adjudicative burden when this Statement is applied to a claim under s120B VEA or s339 MRCA. Practically, a claimant bears the evidentiary task of establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that at least one of the listed factors existed and was related to relevant service. The instrument does not change who bears the legal onus under the VEA or MRCA; it supplies the medical basis and the factual factors decision-makers should test against the evidence.

Mandatory causal factor requirement

• Before a finder can conclude that the condition is connected with service on the balance of probabilities, at least one of the factors listed in section 8 must be shown to exist (Factors that must exist). This operates as a gate: an absence of evidence of the enumerated factors will, under this Statement, prevent the condition from being accepted as connected with service on the specified standard.

Relation-to-service duty

• The Statement requires that any factor relied upon be related to the person’s relevant service (Relationship to service, section 9(1)). Practically, this imposes a duty on claimants to provide evidence linking the enumerated factor to a period or event of relevant service. For the management‑access factor (section 8(3)), subsection 9(2) further constrains its application to material contribution or aggravation where the condition was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service.

Interaction duty where other Statements apply

• Where a factor in section 8 refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, the factors in that other Statement apply as those factors stand from time to time (section 10). That requires assessors and claimants to review and satisfy, where applicable, the terms of other Statements in force.

Rights implicit in the Statement

• The Statement sets the parameters that will be used in assessing causal connection; the right it confers is procedural and evidentiary: claimants are entitled to have their case evaluated against the specified factors and the balance of probabilities standard articulated by the Authority. The Statement also clarifies definitional boundaries (for example, what constitutes the condition and the meaning of terminal event), which aids the fairness and predictability of decision-making.

No duties for practitioners beyond evidential expectations

• The Statement does not impose statutory professional obligations on clinicians, but it establishes the contours of the medical evidence decision-makers will require. Clinicians preparing reports for claimants or claims administrators will need to address the presence or absence of the listed factors and the linkage of those factors to relevant service.

Limitations and exclusions

• The Statement excludes certain diagnoses (isolated biciptitoradial bursitis) and sets a narrow list of relevant factors; therefore, a claimant’s right to have alternative causal arguments considered is limited insofar as such arguments do not fall within the Statement or within other applicable Statements referred to under section 10. The instrument itself does not create new entitlements or penalties; its function is to guide causal assessment within the pre-existing claims regime.

The instrument contains no penal provisions and does not itself impose fines, criminal liability, or administrative sanctions. It is a Statement of Principles made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA and framed as a medical‑scientific determination for the purposes of adjudicating claims under certain provisions of the VEA and MRCA (Authority, Application). The instrument does not create enforcement mechanisms or specify disciplinary processes.

How the Statement is enforced in practice depends on the administrative claims processes established under the VEA and the MRCA, which are outside the text of the Statement. The Statement functions as a determinative medical‑scientific framework that decision-makers are to use when assessing causal connection on a balance-of-probabilities standard for claims to which s120B VEA or s339 MRCA apply. The instrument itself, however, does not spell out who must follow it or sanctions for non‑compliance in the abstract; those matters are governed by the parent legislation and administrative procedures not reproduced in this document.

Consequently:

• There are no penalties set out in this Statement for failing to meet any of the factors in section 8. Rather, failure to establish an enumerated factor will likely result in an inability to meet the causal connection threshold specified by the Statement when applied to a claim.
• There are no enforcement powers conferred on the Repatriation Medical Authority by this instrument beyond what is prescribed in subsection 196B(3) of the VEA , namely, the Authority’s power to determine Statements of Principles. The instrument records the Authority’s determination; it does not create investigatory or sanctioning powers.

Administrative effect on claim outcomes

• The practical enforcement-like effect of the Statement is procedural: claims adjudicators will use the Statement as a medical benchmark when deciding whether the veteran’s or member’s distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (or death from it) is connected to relevant service. The “enforcement” therefore takes the form of accept/decline outcomes in the claims process based on whether the claimant can demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of the listed factors and their relation to relevant service.

Limits on reliance: interaction with other Statements

• If a factor in section 8 points to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, then the other Statement’s factors apply (section 10). That interaction imposes a de facto enforcement mechanism whereby other Statements, as in force from time to time, can widen or narrow the factual bases that must be met; non‑satisfaction of those imported factors will have a practical effect on claim acceptance.

In sum, the Statement has no direct penal provisions. Its coercive effect operates via administrative decision-making in the claims processes under the VEA and MRCA: evidence that fails to satisfy the Statement’s factors and relation-to-service constraints will result in unsuccessful claims within those statutory schemes.

This Statement is expressly made under the legal authority of subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Authority). It is designed to be used within two statutory claim pathways: section 120B of the VEA and section 339 of the MRCA (Application). The Statement therefore operates as a medical‑scientific instrument within the broader legal frameworks of the VEA and MRCA.

Cross-references and definitions

• The Schedule defines “VEA” and “MRCA” for the purposes of the instrument (Schedule 1 - Dictionary). It defines “relevant service” in terms that map to categories in the VEA and MRCA: eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA; defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA; and peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1 - Dictionary, Definitions). Those statutory definitions limit the pool of service that can be relied upon when applying the Statement to an individual claim.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles

• The instrument contains a specific rule of interaction with other Statements under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA: where a factor in section 8 applies in relation to a person and that factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, the factors in that other Statement apply according to the terms of that Statement as in force from time to time (section 10). This creates a normative hierarchy or network: the current Statement may import the terms of other Statements where cross‑referencing occurs. Practically, a claimant may need to consult multiple Statements to understand the full set of factors that apply to their claim.

No legislative amendment function

• The Statement does not amend the VEA, the MRCA, or other primary legislation. It is an administrative instrument issued under the VEA for the purpose of articulating medical factors that will be considered in claims assessments. It clarifies causation parameters rather than altering statutory entitlement tests or procedural law.

Operational dependence on statutory claims procedures

• The Statement’s practical effect is mediated by the procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and administrative decision-making processes set out in the VEA and the MRCA. For example, the Statement identifies the balance of probabilities as the standard for accepting the medical causal link, but the application of that standard in tribunals, appeals processes, or internal review procedures is governed by the procedural law attached to the underlying Acts, which are not reproduced in this instrument.

Defined term interaction

• The Schedule’s definition of “terminal event” supplies the medical proximate causes that, if contributed to by distal biceps brachii tendinopathy, can link death to the tendinopathy. That definition therefore interacts with statutory processes for assessing death-related claims under the VEA or MRCA.

No mention of other federal, state or territory statutes

• The Statement does not reference or purport to affect other federal, state or territory legislation (for example, workers’ compensation schemes or civil liability laws). Where a claimant seeks entitlements or remedies under other legal regimes, the Statement itself does not control those outcomes but may be used as medical evidence where admissible.

In sum, the Statement operates within the VEA/MRCA claims architecture, imports relevant statutory definitions from those Acts via the Schedule, and provides an interaction rule with other Statements of Principles. It neither amends the underlying statutes nor purports to displace other legal regimes beyond its stated application.

The instrument identifies itself as “Statement of Principles concerning distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 4 of 2025)”. It is dated 17 December 2024 and the instrument’s Commencement clause records that it commences on 28 January 2025. It is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Authority). Those are the documentary traces of its provenance in the instrument text.

The instrument does not contain any internal record of prior versions, prior Statements on the same injury, nor does it list amendments to earlier instruments within this document. There are no amendment clauses within the text that change earlier Statements, nor is there a schedule that chronicles prior repeal or replacement. The instrument also does not include transitional provisions, savings, or express repeal language for earlier Statements.

The instrument’s section 10 contemplates that other Statements of Principles may exist and that factors in those Statements may be imported where applicable. That mechanism implicitly allows for future amendment risk because it applies “as in force from time to time” to other Statements. However, this Statement itself contains no in-text record of having amended or replaced any predecessor Statement.

Given the absence in the instrument of an explicit amendment history, a user of this document should treat it as the current Statement in force from its commencement date (28 January 2025) and should check the Repatriation Medical Authority’s public register or the relevant legislation for any subsequent amendments or replacement instruments. The instrument as supplied does not state any formal amendment or revocation of prior Statements, nor does it provide a revision history.

When advising claimants or preparing evidence, parties should therefore:

• Note the instrument’s date and commencement (17 December 2024 and 28 January 2025 respectively), and
• Confirm whether any later Statements or amendments have been made after the commencement date by consulting the Repatriation Medical Authority’s publications or the consolidated legislative materials.

This Statement, as drafted, contains no retrospective amendment language and no transitional or savings provisions that alter how claims that arose before its commencement are to be treated. The document itself does not record any litigation-driven amendments or subsequent revisions.

The instrument contains no reference to any judicial decisions, litigation, or appeals in relation to this Statement of Principles. It does not list any cases, tribunal determinations, or legal challenges that have tested the Statement’s provisions. The text includes only the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical‑scientific determinations and the statutory basis for issuing the Statement (subsection 196B(3) of the VEA).

There are no footnotes, annotations, or schedules within the instrument that supply a litigation history or indicate that any of its provisions have been subject to judicial interpretation. The absence of such references in the instrument means that, as a matter of the document’s contents, no litigation history is recorded.

Practitioners and advisors should therefore treat the Statement as an administrative medical instrument without any litigation pedigree disclosed in the instrument itself. If judicial or tribunal decisions are relevant to the interpretation or application of this Statement in particular cases, those decisions will not be found in the Statement text and must be sought separately in case law databases, tribunal records, or administrative review decisions. The instrument does, however, make provision for interaction with other Statements of Principles (section 10), which may themselves have been the subject of litigation; any such litigation history relating to other Statements is not included in this document.

In short, the Statement does not record or cite any litigation history. Any judicial or administrative decisions that bear on the proper construction or application of the Statement will need to be identified by separate research outside of the instrument’s text.

The instrument is concise and narrowly framed. The following are specific practical pitfalls and constraints that arise from the instrument’s text and that parties should note when assessing or presenting claims:

1. Limited, enumerated causal factors

• The Statement requires that at least one of the specified factors in section 8 be present before a conclusion on service connection can be made on the balance of probabilities. These are a narrow list: sudden forceful extension during elbow flexion at clinical onset, anabolic steroid abuse at clinical onset, or inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening. If a claimant’s asserted causal mechanism falls outside these enumerated scenarios, the Statement does not provide support and an assessor may find the claim unsupported by this instrument.

2. Requirement of relation to relevant service

• Any factor relied on must be related to “relevant service” as defined in the Schedule (section 9(1)). Evidence that an enumerated factor occurred outside periods of the defined relevant service is insufficient on its own. Practically, claimants must link the occurrence of the factor to the specified types of service: eligible war service (other than operational), defence service (other than hazardous and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, or peacetime service under the MRCA.

3. Narrow operation of the management‑access factor

• The inability to obtain appropriate clinical management factor (section 8(3)) is limited by subsection 9(2) to cases of material contribution or aggravation where the condition was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service. This means a claimant whose tendinopathy first arose out of relevant service cannot rely on section 8(3) to establish initial causation; the management‑access factor instead operates to capture material contribution or aggravation in the specified factual setting. Advisors must be careful when construing this factor for pre-existing conditions.

4. Death linkage requires contribution to a terminal event

• For death to be included, the Statement requires that a terminal event or condition was contributed to by distal biceps brachii tendinopathy. The Schedule defines terminal event by concrete examples (pneumonia; respiratory failure; cardiac arrest; circulatory failure; cessation of brain function). Mere presence of tendinopathy in a decedent is not enough; claimants must show contribution to a terminal event as defined.

5. Exclusion of isolated biciptitoradial bursitis

• The instrument explicitly excludes biciptitoradial bursitis unless it is accompanied by distal biceps brachii tendinopathy (subsection 6(2)(c)). Claims premised solely on bursitis will not be supported by this Statement.

6. Importation of other Statements

• Where an enumerated factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, that other Statement’s factors apply “as in force from time to time” (section 10). This can complicate evidentiary strategy because claimants may need to satisfy both this Statement’s factor and the current terms of the other Statement; changes to those other Statements over time may alter the evidential landscape.

7. What amounts to “abusing anabolic steroids” is not defined

• The Statement lists “abusing anabolic steroids at the time of clinical onset” as a factor (section 8(2)) but does not define “abusing” or set thresholds. This leaves room for disputes over the evidentiary standard and the nature, timing and documentation of steroid use required to satisfy this factor. The Statement does not supply objective markers (prescription vs illicit use; dosages; duration) leaving fact-specific enquiries to decision-makers.

8. “Clinically symptomatic” is the diagnostic threshold

• The definition uses the phrase “clinically symptomatic inflammation or degeneration” (subsection 6(2)(a)). The Statement does not define what clinical signs or symptoms are necessary or sufficient; hence, disagreements may arise between clinicians about whether the clinical threshold has been met in any particular case.

9. Temporal specificity for sudden forceful extension

• The sudden forceful extension factor requires occurrence “at the time of clinical onset” (section 8(1)). This temporal specificity requires claimants to demonstrate close temporal linkage between the event (for example, catching a heavy load) and the clinical onset of tendinopathy. Vague or retrospective recollections may be inadequate.

10. No procedural detail on evidentiary sufficiency

• The Statement does not prescribe what documentary evidence, forms of expert opinion, or contemporaneous clinical notes will suffice. Therefore, claimants must anticipate requests for robust contemporaneous medical records or credible retrospective accounts; the Statement itself provides no guidance on acceptable evidentiary formats.

These “gotchas” derive directly from the instrument’s narrow enumeration of factors, its definitions and the interaction rules it creates. They should guide evidence collection and legal strategy in preparing or opposing claims that seek to rely on this Statement.

The Statement itself does not set procedural compliance requirements, but it prescribes the medical and factual elements that must be established to meet the causal connection threshold for claims under the cited provisions. The following practical steps are consistent with the Statement’s terms and reflect how claimants and practitioners should organise evidence and submissions to align with the Statement’s requirements.

1. Establish a clear clinical diagnosis that fits the Statement’s definition

• Provide medical records and clinician reports demonstrating “clinically symptomatic inflammation or degeneration of the distal biceps brachii tendon” or documenting partial or complete distal biceps brachii tendon tears (subsection 6(2)(a)-(b)). Where imaging or surgery corroborates the clinical diagnosis, include those reports. Note the Statement excludes isolated biciptitoradial bursitis (subsection 6(2)(c)), so ensure the diagnosis specifically identifies distal biceps brachii tendinopathy rather than isolated bursitis.

2. Prove at least one enumerated factor and its timing

• Sudden forceful extension (section 8(1)): Collect contemporaneous incident reports, witness statements, workplace logs, sports injury reports, or contemporaneous medical notes that tie a discrete event (catching a heavy load, fall on an outstretched hand, contact sports incident) to the time when symptoms began. The Statement requires the event to have occurred “at the time of clinical onset”; therefore temporal proximity is crucial.
• Anabolic steroid abuse (section 8(2)): Document evidence of steroid use at the time of clinical onset. Because the Statement does not define “abuse”, include prescription records if relevant, pharmacy records, hospital notes, toxicology where available, or credible clinical histories that establish use contemporaneous with onset. Consider clinicians’ statements explaining how steroid use can contribute to tendon pathology, linked to the individual’s timeline.
• Inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (section 8(3)): For claims relying on this factor, compile evidence showing attempts to obtain timely and appropriate medical treatment and records demonstrating failure of access prior to clinical worsening. Examples could include appointment logs, referral refusals, correspondence, or contemporaneous primary-care notes noting inability to access specialist treatment. Remember subsection 9(2): this factor applies only where the condition was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service, and where the lack of management materially contributed to or aggravated the condition. Therefore, the evidence must establish the pre-existing nature of the condition, the service period timing, and causal linkage to subsequent worsening.

3. Demonstrate relation to relevant service

• Tie the occurrence of the relevant factor(s) to the person’s “relevant service” as defined in the Schedule. Provide service records, operational logs, unit diaries, deployment histories, or other official documentation that show the claimant was engaged in eligible war service (other than operational service), defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service), or peacetime service under the MRCA, at the time the enumerated factor occurred or the period in which the management-access failure occurred.

4. Address death claims with terminal event linkage

• For death claims, produce medical records and death-certification material showing that a terminal event listed in the Schedule (pneumonia; respiratory failure; cardiac arrest; circulatory failure; cessation of brain function) occurred and that the deceased’s distal biceps brachii tendinopathy contributed to that terminal event. Provide clinical opinions explaining the mechanism of contribution.

5. Prepare medico-legal opinions that apply the Statement

• Medical-legal experts should frame their opinions in terms of the Statement’s language: confirm whether the condition meets the clinical definition in subsection 6(2), state whether any of the section 8 factors were present and related to relevant service, and assess contribution to terminal events if death is involved. Opinions should address the balance of probabilities standard explicitly and explain the factual and medical basis for concluding that the Statement’s factor(s) are satisfied.

6. If factors refer to other Statements, satisfy those Statements too

• Where a factor in section 8 refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement, identify the other Statement and ensure evidence addresses its factors “as in force from time to time” (section 10). Collect the relevant documentation and expert commentary necessary to meet the combined requirements.

7. Anticipate challenges on timing, definitions and causation

• Be ready to demonstrate temporal proximity between incident and clinical onset, the clinical basis for diagnosis, and the specifics of any steroid use or barriers to treatment. Because the Statement leaves certain terms undefined (for example “abusing anabolic steroids” and “appropriate clinical management”), practitioners should supply clear factual and clinical explanations to reduce ambiguity for decision-makers.

8. Maintain contemporaneous records

• Given the Statement’s reliance on temporal linkage and clinical onset, preserve contemporaneous medical notes, incident reports, service documentation and communications showing attempts to obtain clinical care. These records will be central to satisfying the Statement’s factual gates.

9. Cross-check definitions and service categories

• Confirm that the claimant’s service fits the Schedule’s definition of “relevant service”. Where there is ambiguity about service classification (for example, whether particular service is “hazardous” or “operational”), collect documentation and, if necessary, submissions that clarify the nature of the service under the VEA/MRCA categories referenced by the Schedule.

10. Monitor for updates to other Statements

• Because section 10 imports factors from other Statements “as in force from time to time”, practitioners should monitor the Repatriation Medical Authority’s register for amendments to relevant Statements that could alter the evidentiary landscape.

Following these steps will align evidentiary and medical reporting practices with the Statement’s narrow factual gates and definitional boundaries, thereby maximising the chance that an adjudicator applying this Statement can find a causal connection on the balance of probabilities where the facts support it.