Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 25 of 2020)

The instrument rests on a small set of interlocking legal and medical concepts expressed in compact statutory language. The key concepts in the instrument are:

• Explosive blast injury. Defined in s 7(2) as "damage to body tissue, organs or bone as a result of an explosive blast". This is a condition-based definition; it does not define "explosive blast" separately, nor does it list particular pathologies beyond the general damage-to-tissue/organ/bone formulation. The Schedule repeats the reference to "explosive blast injury" (Schedule definition cross‑referencing s 7(2)).

• Death from explosive blast injury. Treated as part of the covered subject matter (s 7(1), (3)). The instrument expressly includes death that results from a "terminal event or condition" contributed to by the explosive blast injury, and defines "terminal event" in the Schedule, with examples (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function).

• Reasonable hypothesis. The instrument frames its operative threshold in terms of whether "a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting explosive blast injury or death from explosive blast injury with the circumstances of a person's relevant service" (s 9 introductory wording). The Statement does not define the legal standard of "reasonable hypothesis" within the instrument; it prescribes the minimum factual factors that must exist for that threshold to be met (s 9).

• Factors that must exist. The instrument specifies two alternative factual bases that satisfy the minimum requirement: (1) being exposed to an explosive blast; and (2) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury (s 9(1)-(2)). The two are alternative; at least one must exist before a reasonable hypothesis can be said to be raised.

• Relationship to relevant service. The instrument requires that any factor relied upon be related to the relevant service the person rendered (s 10(1)). "Relevant service" is defined in the Schedule and includes particular forms of service under the VEA and MRCA (see Schedule: operational service, peacekeeping service, hazardous service, British nuclear test defence service, warlike service, and non-warlike service).

• Temporal and causal limitation on the clinical-management factor. Subsection 10(2) narrows the application of the inability-to-obtain-management factor: it is limited to cases where the explosive blast injury was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service. In such circumstances inability to obtain appropriate clinical management is relevant only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, the injury.

• Interplay with other Statements of Principles. Section 11 allows factors described in this instrument to import factors from other Statements of Principles if those factors refer to injuries or diseases covered by other Statements. Those other Statements apply "as in force from time to time", which means later changes to other Statements may affect the application when cross-referencing occurs.

• Jurisdictional application. The instrument applies to claims to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA apply (s 5). The instrument is made under the specific power in subsection 196B(2) of the VEA (s 3).

Together these concepts make the instrument a focused, condition-specific guidance instrument: it defines the condition, states the medico-legal threshold (reasonable hypothesis), lists required factual factors, requires a link to "relevant service", and allows cross-reference to other determinations. The definitions in the Schedule are integral; for example "terminal event" is defined with specific examples, and "relevant service" is enumerated in the Schedule.

The instrument is designed to affect a limited set of actors connected with statutory claims processes under the VEA and MRCA. The text itself identifies the affected parties and decision points:

• Claimants. The Statement "applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies" (s 5). That means any person making a claim that engages those statutory provisions will be subject to assessment against this Statement of Principles when explosive blast injury or death from explosive blast injury is an issue in their claim. The instrument therefore affects veterans, members of Peacekeeping Forces, or members of the Forces whose claims involve explosive blast injury, because s 8 states the RMA's view about the connection between explosive blast injury and "relevant service rendered by veterans, members of Peacekeeping Forces, or members of the Forces under the VEA, or members under the MRCA."

• Decision‑makers and assessors. The Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) is the maker of the instrument (s 3). The Statement is intended to be used by the authorities that decide claims under the VEA and MRCA to determine whether the statutory threshold of a reasonable hypothesis has been met, because s 9 frames the minimum factual factors required "before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised". The instrument therefore affects those adjudicators who must apply the Statement in deciding entitlement issues under the specified sections, although the instrument itself does not name the decision body that will apply it.

• Health practitioners and record keepers indirectly. While the instrument does not regulate practitioners directly, the content creates evidential categories claimants will need to address , for example, proof of exposure to an explosive blast or inability to obtain appropriate clinical management , which in practice tends to involve medical evidence and service records. The Schedule’s definition of "terminal event" clarifies which causes of death may be treated as resulting from explosive blast injury for the purposes of claims.

• The Repatriation Medical Authority. The RMA both makes the Statement (s 3) and expresses on the face of the instrument its view about medical-scientific evidence linking explosive blast injury to relevant service (s 8). The RMA is the deciding authority for Statements of Principles under s 196B(2) of the VEA.

The instrument does not itself create entitlement, payment mechanisms, penalties or administrative processes; rather it provides the medical‑scientific threshold for assessing whether a reasonable hypothesis of service connection exists for claims falling within the cited sections of the VEA and MRCA. The practical effect is that the people bringing claims must establish the existence of at least one of the listed factors (s 9) and the required relationship to relevant service (s 10). The RMA’s determination and the cross-references to other Statements of Principles (s 11) guide the factual assessment that adjudicators make.

The Statement of Principles is not framed as an instrument that directly imposes duties or creates rights in the manner of a primary Act; instead it prescribes the medico-legal threshold and factual factors used when rights and duties under the VEA or MRCA are being determined. From the instrument’s terms, the following operative duties and rights can be extracted, as they affect the parties involved in claims processing:

• Duty on decision-makers to apply the Statement when relevant. The instrument "applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies" (s 5). That means, where adjudicators are deciding such claims and explosive blast injury is at issue, they must apply this Statement of Principles as the delineation of the factual factors that raise a reasonable hypothesis. The Statement sets the minimum evidential factors required (s 9). The instrument does not itself specify adjudicative procedure, but s 9 directs that at least one of the listed factors must be established before the adjudicator can conclude that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised.

• Right to have the RMA’s view considered. The RMA has expressed a view that there is "sound medical‑scientific evidence that indicates that explosive blast injury and death from explosive blast injury can be related to relevant service" (s 8). That expression functions as a form of statutory evidentiary guidance that decision-makers are to consider when applying the standard in the relevant claim provisions; the instrument itself formalises that view.

• Obligation on claimants to show an applicable factor and service linkage. The Statement states the minimum factual material necessary: exposure to an explosive blast or inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s 9). Further, the instrument requires that the existence of any such factor "must be related to the relevant service rendered by the person" (s 10(1)). For the management-factor, s 10(2) further constrains its application to cases where the injury was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service. Practically those requirements impose an evidential burden on claimants to establish temporal, factual and causal connections.

• Cross-application of other Statements of Principles. If a factor in this Statement refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, then "the factors in that Statement of Principles apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time" (s 11). This creates a duty on adjudicators to consult and apply the provisions of the other Statements as they currently stand when cross-referencing arises.

• No penalties or express enforcement powers within the Statement. The instrument does not create penalties, fines or criminal offences, nor does it set out enforcement procedures. Its operation is confined to setting the medical‑legal parameters for claim assessment as described in s 5 and s 9-11. Any consequences in terms of entitlements or benefit payments arise under the VEA or MRCA administrative and adjudicative frameworks, not under this Statement.

• Repeal and continuity. The instrument expressly repeals the prior Statement of Principles concerning physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 48 of 2012 (s 4), replacing it for relevant claims. Decision-makers and claimants must therefore apply the new Statement for claims to which it applies.

In short, the instrument imposes an evidentiary regime for claims assessment: decision-makers must use it when appropriate (s 5); claimants must establish at least one of the predetermined factors and the service link (s 9-10); the RMA’s view on the medical‑scientific evidence is made explicit (s 8); and other Statements of Principles may be incorporated by reference where relevant (s 11). The instrument itself does not create standalone statutory entitlements or penalties independent of the VEA and MRCA frameworks.

The Statement of Principles instrument does not create criminal offences, monetary penalties, administrative fines or separate enforcement mechanisms within its text. Its legal operation is limited to being an instrument that supplies medico‑legal factors for claim assessment under specified provisions of the VEA and MRCA. The following are the direct, source-supported statements about penalties and enforcement:

• No penalties specified. The instrument contains no provisions imposing penalties, sanctions, or enforcement remedies. It is a determinative guidance instrument under the RMA’s power in subsection 196B(2) of the VEA (s 3), and its operative clauses concern definition, medical-scientific view, the factors required to raise a reasonable hypothesis, relationship to service, and interaction with other Statements (s 7-11). None of those sections establishes penalties.

• Enforcement by application in claims processes. The instrument "applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies" (s 5). Thus the instrument’s "enforcement" in practice occurs through its mandatory application in adjudicative decision-making under those provisions. The mechanism is administrative application: adjudicators determining entitlement issues will use the Statement as the medical‑scientific threshold document when explosive blast injury is at issue. The instrument itself does not specify the administrative procedures by which adjudicators apply it; those procedures are contained in the primary statutes and administrative practice outside the instrument.

• Repeal of prior Statement and transitional effect. Section 4 repeals the earlier Statement No. 48 of 2012. The practical result for enforcement is that the RMA’s current Statement (No. 25 of 2020) supersedes the earlier Statement for the claims to which it applies. The instrument does not include transitional enforcement provisions; it simply states the repeal.

• Reliance on RMA’s "view" as evidentiary guidance. Section 8 records that the RMA is "of the view that there is sound medical‑scientific evidence that indicates that explosive blast injury and death from explosive blast injury can be related to relevant service." That statement is the RMA’s expressed scientific position and operates as the evidentiary basis for the Statement. In administrative practice, that RMA view is the ground on which adjudicators rely when applying the Statement to raise or reject a reasonable hypothesis. The instrument does not itself define the legal consequences of accepting or rejecting the hypothesis; those consequences flow from the relevant provisions of the VEA and MRCA.

• Cross-referencing with other Statements of Principles. Section 11 requires that, where factors in this Statement refer to injuries or diseases covered by other Statements made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, those other Statements' factors apply. This creates a form of enforcement-by-integration, wherein other Statements' operative factors bind the adjudicative analysis as they stand "from time to time".

To sum up, this instrument does not itself impose penalties or enforcement routes. Its enforcement effect is indirect: it regulates the threshold and factual ingredients that adjudicators must apply when determining whether a reasonable hypothesis connects an explosive blast injury to relevant service for the purposes of claims covered by the cited statutory sections (s 5, s 9-11). Any adverse or favourable consequence for a claimant follows from the primary legislation and the decisions that use this Statement, not from punitive or enforcement provisions within the Statement itself.

The Statement of Principles functions within the statutory architecture of veteran and defence-related entitlements; the instrument itself identifies its legal basis and some specific interactions with other determinations, but it does not operate as a stand-alone source of entitlements. The instrument establishes several points of legal interaction, all stated within the instrument text:

• Made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA. The instrument is produced under s 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (s 3). That statutory power authorises the Repatriation Medical Authority to determine Statements of Principles. The Statement therefore operates as a subordinate instrument made under the VEA.

• Application to claims under the VEA and MRCA. The Statement "applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies" (s 5). That means the Statement is part of the determinate material used by decision-makers when applying those sections of the primary Acts. The Statement is not a provision of the VEA or MRCA themselves; it is an external instrument that supplies medical‑scientific factors for statutory application.

• Cross-reference to other Statements of Principles. Section 11 provides a specific mechanism for interaction between Statements: if a factor in this Statement refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement of Principles made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, then "the factors in that Statement of Principles apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time." That clause explicitly ties the operation of this Statement to the content and future amendments of other Statements, meaning the legal effect of a cross-referenced factor can shift if the other Statement is amended.

• Repeal of a prior Statement. Section 4 repeals the Statement of Principles concerning "physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 48 of 2012" (Federal Register number provided). The interaction here is replacement: the 2020 Statement supersedes the 2012 Statement for relevant claims.

• Definitions and statutory terminology. The Schedule defines "MRCA", "VEA", "relevant service", and "terminal event". These definitions anchor the Statement’s application within the statutory language of the VEA and MRCA. For example, "relevant service" is defined in the Schedule to include operational, peacekeeping, hazardous and British nuclear test defence service under the VEA and warlike and non-warlike service under the MRCA. The Statement thus imports the statutory categories of service as limiting criteria for application (s 10(1) requires the factor to be related to relevant service).

• Evidential and adjudicative role. The Statement’s function is to identify the factual factors needed to raise a reasonable hypothesis in the statutory claims process. It does not itself create or alter rights under the VEA or MRCA, but it interacts with those Acts by providing the medical‑scientific conditions that feed into the Acts’ decision rules. The instrument records the RMA’s view that there is "sound medical‑scientific evidence" linking the condition to relevant service (s 8), which the primary legislation requires adjudicators to consider.

• No conflict or overriding clauses. The instrument does not contain express privative clauses, ouster provisions, or statements that it overrides other laws. It expressly imports other Statements of Principles where relevant (s 11), and it operates under the enabling provision in the VEA (s 3).

In short, the instrument is a subordinate, medico‑scientific instrument that must be used to assess specific claims under the VEA and MRCA. It interacts with the primary Acts by identifying the minimum factual triggers for the "reasonable hypothesis" threshold, incorporating statutory categories such as "relevant service" from the Schedule, and by cross-referencing other Statements of Principles made under the same statutory power.

The instrument contains minimal internal amendment history but records key dates, replacement and authority information relevant to its lifecycle. The instrument itself records the following items which constitute its historical and amendment footprint:

• Date of instrument and commencement. The instrument is dated 24 April 2020 (instrument header) and expressly "commences on 25 May 2020" (s 2). Those dates mark the instrument's formal making and operative start.

• Authority and enabling provision. The instrument was made under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (s 3). The instrument therefore binds back to the procedural and amendment regimes applicable to instruments made under that enabling provision. Any later amendments to the enabling Act or the authority of the Repatriation Medical Authority could affect future Statements, but that is external to the instrument.

• Repeal of prior Statement. Section 4 repeals the previous Statement of Principles concerning "physical injury due to munitions discharge No. 48 of 2012" (Federal Register number recorded). The instrument therefore replaced the 2012 Statement for relevant claims as at its commencement. The instrument itself does not record transitional provisions or savings clauses beyond the repeal statement; it simply records the repeal.

• Cross‑reference mechanism for future change. Section 11 provides that if a factor in this Statement refers to an injury or disease in respect of which another Statement of Principles has been determined under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, then "the factors in that Statement of Principles apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Principles as in force from time to time." That wording explicitly anticipates that other Statements may be amended in future and ensures that cross-reference will follow the current terms of the other Statements. This means the effective legal content of interplay with other Statements can change over time without this instrument being amended.

• No amendment provisions within the instrument. The Statement contains no internal provisions specifying how it itself may be amended, revoked or varied beyond the ordinary statutory processes under the VEA for making or repealing Statements of Principles. The instrument does not reserve transitional application rules for claims spanning the repeal or commencement dates; the repeal is stated plainly in s 4.

• Identification in header and schedule. The instrument identifies itself by name and number, "Statement of Principles concerning explosive blast injury (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 25 of 2020)" (s 1). The header and contents list provide a record of the instrument’s structure which would be referenced in any subsequent amendment history.

For users of the Statement, the important historical points recorded in the instrument are the commencement date (25 May 2020), the repeal of the 2012 Statement, and the fact that cross-referenced Statements will apply "as in force from time to time" (s 11), which preserves the dynamic effect of later amendments to other Statements. The instrument does not itself contain a series of amendments or revisions; it is a discrete replacement for the earlier 2012 Statement at the date of commencement.

The text of the Statement of Principles contains no record of litigation history, judicial decisions, or case law connected to the instrument. The instrument is a statutory determination made by the Repatriation Medical Authority under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, and it does not itself recount or cite any legal proceedings. The following observations are directly grounded in the instrument text:

• No cases or judicial references included. The instrument does not mention any court or tribunal decisions, nor does it list precedents or conclusions reached in litigation. The instrument’s stated basis is the RMA’s view that "there is sound medical‑scientific evidence" supporting a connection between explosive blast injury and relevant service (s 8), but no litigation history is recorded in the document.

• Instrument operates in administrative claim contexts where litigation may follow. The instrument is stated to "apply to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies" (s 5). Those statutory claims processes are typically administered and can be the subject of merits review or judicial review in relevant tribunals or courts. However, the Statement itself does not recount outcomes of such reviews, nor does it include an annex of litigation.

• Cross-referencing Statements may have separate litigation. Section 11 creates potential interaction with other Statements of Principles "as in force from time to time." Litigation that has engaged those other Statements would be recorded in the records of those Statements or in decisions under the VEA or MRCA, but this instrument contains no such records.

• Repeal of prior Statement noted without litigation reference. Section 4 repeals the prior Statement No. 48 of 2012. The instrument does not record whether that repeal was prompted by litigation, policy review, or scientific developments; it simply records the repeal.

If a practitioner requires litigation history relevant to the application or interpretation of this Statement, that history is not contained in the instrument and must be sought from judicial and tribunal records concerning claims under the VEA or MRCA, or from decisions that have applied prior or related Statements of Principles. The instrument itself offers no litigation record to rely upon.

This concise instrument contains several drafting and interpretive points that can affect claim assessment and administrative practice. The following "gotchas" are matters of construction, evidentiary effect and procedural implication that arise directly from the instrument’s text. Each is grounded in the relevant section citations.

• Narrow set of required factors. Section 9 states that "at least one" of only two factors must exist before a reasonable hypothesis is raised: exposure to an explosive blast, or inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury. There is no broader catalogue of contributing exposures or mechanisms in the Statement itself. Practitioners should note that if evidence does not establish either of these two factors, the instrument indicates the reasonable-hypothesis threshold is not met on its terms (s 9).

• Core terms left undefined or open to interpretation. The Statement defines "explosive blast injury" (s 7(2)) but does not define "explosive blast" or "appropriate clinical management". The absence of explicit definitions for those terms may produce interpretive disputes in claims about what constitutes exposure to a blast and what level of medical care qualifies as "appropriate clinical management". Those disputes will be resolved in practice by adjudicators applying the Statement and by the medical evidence put forward, but the instrument itself provides no granular guidance on thresholds or standards.

• Temporal and causal limitation on the clinical-management factor. Subsection 10(2) restricts the application of the inability-to-obtain-management factor to "material contribution to, or aggravation of, explosive blast injury where the person's explosive blast injury was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person's relevant service". That wording means inability-to-obtain-management is not available to establish a service connection where the explosive blast injury "arose out of" the relevant service. The phrase "did not arise out of" introduces a layered causal analysis: if the injury arose out of service, failure to obtain clinical management is not the relevant factor for material contribution under s 9(2). Practitioners must attend to these temporal and causal constraints when drafting or assessing claims.

• Cross‑reference to other Statements of Principles can introduce variability. Section 11 requires that factors in other Statements apply "as in force from time to time". This means that a factor in this Statement that refers to another Statement will import whatever that other Statement says at the time of application. That produces potential volatility: amendments to other Statements can change how a cross-referenced factor operates without amendment to this instrument.

• Repeal of prior Statement may have evidentiary consequences. The 2012 Statement No. 48 is expressly repealed (s 4). Claims that were previously assessed under the 2012 Statement must now be assessed under this Statement if they fall within its application. The new Statement has a narrower or different set of factors; practitioners should not assume continuity of language or approach between the 2012 and 2020 Statements without direct textual comparison.

• The instrument’s scope is limited to claims under specific statutory sections. Section 5 limits application to claims to which s 120A of the VEA or s 338 of the MRCA apply. The instrument therefore does not purport to apply outside those claim contexts. Users must check whether a claim engages those specific statutory sections; the instrument gives no wider jurisdictional authority beyond those cross-references.

• "Terminal event" examples are non-exclusive but illustrative. The Schedule defines "terminal event" and lists several examples (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function). The Schedule’s wording indicates these are included examples, but the instrument does not state whether the list is exhaustive. Interpretive argument could arise over whether other terminal events fall within the meaning; the instrument provides examples but no comprehensive list.

• No procedural guidance or evidentiary thresholds provided. The Statement indicates the factual factors required to raise a reasonable hypothesis but does not set out how evidence is to be weighed, what standard of proof applies beyond the "reasonable hypothesis" phrase, or what documentation suffices. Those procedural and evidential matters will be determined by the statutory adjudicative framework external to the Statement.

In practice, these drafting features create points where claimants and decision-makers must fill the interpretive gaps with evidence, medical opinion and administrative practice. The instrument gives a narrow, clear set of factors but leaves key terms and application mechanisms to be determined outside the instrument. Practitioners should pay special attention to the definitions in the Schedule, the temporal limitation in s 10(2), and cross-references under s 11.

The Statement is an evidentiary threshold instrument used in claim assessment. Compliance in this context means ensuring that the application of the Statement by claimants and decision-makers aligns with its terms. The requirements and practical steps below are grounded in the instrument’s text.

1. Confirm the claim is one to which the Statement applies. The instrument "applies to a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies" (s 5). Prior to relying on or responding to the Statement, verify that the claim invokes one of those statutory provisions. If those sections do not apply, this Statement is not the operative Statement of Principles.

2. Establish that the condition falls within the Statement. The Statement covers "explosive blast injury" as defined in s 7(2): "damage to body tissue, organs or bone as a result of an explosive blast". If the medical condition alleged is not readily described as damage to tissue, organs or bone caused by an explosive blast, the Statement may not apply. If death is alleged, check s 7(3) and the Schedule’s definition of "terminal event" to confirm the nature of the death claimed.

3. Meet the minimum factual factor requirement. Section 9 requires that at least one of the following exist before a reasonable hypothesis can be said to be raised: (1) being exposed to an explosive blast; or (2) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for explosive blast injury. To comply with the Statement’s terms, establish evidence that satisfies at least one of those factors.

4. Link the factor to "relevant service". Section 10(1) requires that the existence of any factor referred to in s 9 "must be related to the relevant service rendered by the person." Use the Schedule’s definition of "relevant service" to identify the applicable category of service (operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence service under the VEA; warlike or non-warlike service under the MRCA). Any asserted exposure or management failure must be connected to the person’s relevant service.

5. Observe the temporal/causal limitation for the clinical-management factor. If relying on inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s 9(2)), ensure the eligibility of that factor under s 10(2). The Statement limits s 9(2) to material contribution or aggravation where the explosive blast injury was "suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person's relevant service." In practical terms, do not attempt to use the inability-to-obtain-management factor to establish material contribution where the injury "arose out of" the relevant service.

6. Anticipate cross-references to other Statements. If any factor in the claim refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another Statement made under s 196B(2) of the VEA, s 11 requires that the factors in that other Statement apply "as in force from time to time." Check relevant other Statements for their current terms so that cross-referenced factors are properly applied.

7. Prepare factual and medical material that addresses the elements specified. The Statement specifies the factual elements to be shown. Although the Statement does not mandate specific documentary proofs, the claimant and advisers should compile material that aligns with the factors and the service link required by the Statement, and that addresses the temporal constraint in s 10(2) where relevant.

8. Keep the repeal and commencement dates in view. The current Statement commenced on 25 May 2020 (s 2) and repealed the earlier 2012 Statement (s 4). For claims that straddle the repeal date or involve issues previously assessed under the 2012 Statement, confirm which Statement applies to avoid misapplication.

9. Anticipate administrative application rather than legislative change. The Statement is to be applied by decision-makers within the VEA and MRCA claims processes. Compliance therefore requires understanding how the Statement will be used administratively and ensuring that submissions and evidence are tailored to the Statement’s specific factors and definitions.

10. Where uncertainty exists about undefined terms, frame admissible evidence to address interpretive gaps. Because core terms such as "explosive blast" and "appropriate clinical management" are not defined in depth, claimants and advisers should anticipate that adjudicators will resolve gaps using medical opinion and factual records. Compliance therefore involves assembling medical and service records and opinions that specifically address exposure, the nature of the blast, timing relative to service, and the availability or absence of clinical management.

To summarise, compliance means (a) confirming the claim engages the statutory sections to which the Statement applies (s 5), (b) establishing the condition fits the Statement’s definition (s 7), (c) proving at least one of the s 9 factors exists and is related to relevant service (s 9-10), and (d) accounting for any cross-references to other Statements (s 11). The Statement itself provides the checklist of required factual elements; compliance consists of aligning the evidentiary material with those elements.