Statement of Principles concerning ganglion (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 8 of 2025)

The instrument rests on a small number of definitional and causal concepts. Each is explicitly set out in the text and the Schedule. The principal concepts are: the statutory source and scope, the clinical meaning of ganglion adopted for claims assessment, the causal test applied, the single enumerated factor required for connection to relevant service, and the temporal limitations on how the factor may be invoked.

Statutory source and scope. The SoP is made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (section 3) and applies to claims governed by section 120B of the VEA and section 339 of the MRCA (section 5). The Schedule defines "relevant service" for the purposes of the instrument as 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 - relevant service). These defined categories determine when the SoP’s factors must be linked to service.

Clinical meaning of ganglion. For claims purposes the SoP gives a working clinical definition of ganglion: a benign, cystic lesion overlying a joint or tendon, consisting of a thin fibrous capsule with no epithelial lining enclosing clear mucinous fluid, and which may be accompanied by pain, weakness and loss of function (section 7(2)(a)). The instrument also lists five explicit exclusions: cyst of bursa, epidermoid cyst, ganglion in yaws, synovial cyst, and Tarlov cyst (section 7(2)(b)). This textual definition is determinative for the SoP even though it notes the condition attracts ICD‑10‑AM code M67.4 (section 7(3)-(4)).

Causal test. The RMA frames causation on the ordinary civil standard of the balance of probabilities. The RMA states that, on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is of the view that it is more probable than not that ganglion and death from ganglion can be related to relevant service (section 8). The SoP then lists the factors that must exist before it can be said, on that balance, that ganglion or death from ganglion is connected to service (section 9).

Enumerated factor. There is a single, express factor set out in section 9(1): inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for ganglion before clinical worsening. That is the required factual circumstance the RMA has determined must be established to support a finding of connection, subject to the relationship-to-service requirements in section 10.

Temporal and relational limits. Section 10 imposes relational requirements. The existence of any factor in section 9 must be related to the person’s relevant service (section 10(1)). Further, the factor in subsection 9(1) applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, ganglion where the ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during the person’s relevant service, but did not arise out of that service (section 10(2)). Thus the instrument differentiates between ganglion that arose out of service, and ganglion that was pre-existing or suffered/contracted before or during service but which did not arise out of service; the enumerated factor only operates in the latter category.

Death and terminal event. The SoP includes "death from ganglion" where the ganglion contributed to a terminal event or condition (section 7(5)). The Schedule defines "terminal event" to include proximate or ultimate causes such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, or cessation of brain function. That links the pathology of ganglion to downstream fatal outcomes for the narrow purpose of claims assessment under this SoP.

Cross-application to other SoPs. Section 11 provides that if a factor in section 9 refers to an injury or disease that is covered by another SoP, then the factors in that other SoP apply according to its terms. This creates an explicit cross-reference mechanism where overlapping conditions or contributing conditions are governed by their own SoPs.

The SoP’s concepts are compact but precise. The clinical definition, the single enumerated factor, and the temporal limits together form the SoP’s operative test for claims connection to relevant service. Each of these is expressed in statutory text and in the Schedule, which should be read together when assessing claims.

Citations: sections 3, 5, 7(2)-(5), 8, 9(1), 10(1)-(2), 11; Schedule definitions.

Primary affected parties. The instrument applies to claimants bringing an entitlement claim under the specified statutory provisions: claims that fall within section 120B of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 or section 339 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (section 5). That means veterans, former members and current members of the Australian Defence Force, and their dependants who seek to establish that ganglion or death from ganglion is connected to relevant service will be assessed in light of this SoP.

Decision makers and assessors. Decision makers and medical assessors operating under the VEA and MRCA framework who determine service connection for claims listed in section 5 will use this SoP as the RMA’s adopted medical-scientific guidance for ganglion and death from ganglion. The instrument is explicit about its provenance: it is made by the RMA under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (section 3), and so it is intended to be the authoritative SoP applied in claims decisions covered by the specified sections.

Veterans with pre-existing ganglion. Claimants whose ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during their relevant service, but did not arise out of that service, are directly affected by the specified factor because the SoP makes the inability to obtain appropriate clinical management prior to clinical worsening a necessary factor for material contribution or aggravation in that circumstance (section 10(2)).

Claimants whose ganglion arose out of service. The SoP’s factor in subsection 9(1) is expressly not the mechanism for cases where ganglion arose out of service. Section 10(2) states the factor applies only where the ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during service but did not arise out of that service. Therefore, claimants whose ganglion clearly arose out of service should note the SoP’s specified factor does not operate in those circumstances. The instrument does not itself prescribe the alternative tests or factors for ganglion that does arise out of service; it restricts the listed factor to the category in section 10(2).

Parties involved in death claims. For claims alleging death from ganglion, dependants or estate representatives lodging claims under the VEA or MRCA regimes will be affected where the death is said to have been contributed to by ganglion. The SoP expressly includes death from ganglion where ganglion contributed to a terminal event or condition, and the Schedule provides examples of what constitutes a terminal event (section 7(5); Schedule - terminal event).

Medical professionals and records custodians. The factor requires evidence of inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (section 9(1)). That will engage treating clinicians and records custodians, because written records, contemporaneous notes and clinical opinion will be the kinds of material used to establish whether appropriate management was unavailable. The SoP therefore influences what evidence treating clinicians’ notes and administrative records must contain to support or refute claims invoking this factor.

Other SoP authors and cross-claimant groups. Section 11 brings other SoPs into play where the factor in section 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP. Stakeholders associated with those other SoPs , authors, assessors, and claimants , are affected insofar as overlap occurs between conditions and the legal test requires cross-application.

Excluded categories of service. The Schedule’s definition of "relevant service" explicitly excludes certain categories: it refers to eligible war service other than operational service, and defence service other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service, as well as peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule - relevant service). Claimants whose service falls into the excluded categories should note that this SoP, as drafted, applies to the categories listed and not to the excluded ones.

Citations: sections 3, 5, 7(2)-(5), 8, 9(1), 10(1)-(2), 11; Schedule definitions.

The instrument does not itself create penal duties or positive service obligations; rather, it defines the evidential factors that must exist for a finding that ganglion or death from ganglion is connected with relevant service. The principal legal effects are procedural and evidentiary in claims assessment.

What claimants must establish. A claimant seeking to establish that, on the balance of probabilities, ganglion or death from ganglion is connected to relevant service must demonstrate the existence of the factor(s) listed in section 9 and that any such factor is related to the claimant’s relevant service (sections 9 and 10(1)). The only factor specified in section 9 is inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for ganglion before clinical worsening (section 9(1)). Therefore, claimants invoking the instrument must advance evidence that this inability existed and that it is causally linked to the material contribution to, or aggravation of, the ganglion where the temporal limit in section 10(2) applies.

Relationship requirement. Section 10(1) imposes a duty on claimants to show that any factor they rely on is related to relevant service. This is an explicit relational test. The instrument does not prescribe the form of evidence required, but it makes the link between the factor and relevant service a necessary part of the causal chain.

Temporal limitation on the enumerated factor. Section 10(2) restricts the operation of the factor in section 9(1) to circumstances where the ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during the person’s relevant service and did not arise out of that service, and where the inability to obtain management materially contributed to or aggravated the condition. This creates a duty for claimants to establish both timing of the original condition and that the lack of clinical management occurred prior to clinical worsening.

Rights to have other SoPs applied. Section 11 preserves the operation of other SoPs where the factor in section 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP. If a factor used in a claim is expressly concerned with a different condition which already has its own SoP, the claimant has the right to have the factors in that other SoP applied according to its terms. That is a procedural safeguard for overlapping conditions.

RMA’s declaration of probabilistic view. Section 8 is the RMA’s statement that, on the balance of probabilities and on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is of the view that ganglion and death from ganglion can be related to relevant service. That declaration functions as the RMA’s expert position for decision makers. Claimants and decision makers are therefore entitled to rely on the SoP as representing the RMA’s medical‑scientific view for the specified claims.

Administrative duties. The instrument itself does not set out specific administrative duties for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or any other agency. It does, however, operate as the RMA’s medical guidance which decision makers assessing claims under the specified statutory sections must consider in determining whether the causal criteria for service connection are met. The precise statutory duties of decision makers are governed by the VEA and MRCA; the SoP provides the RMA’s factors to be applied in that statutory framework.

No statutory penalties in the instrument. The SoP does not create criminal or civil penalties or enforcement mechanisms. Its operative legal consequence is to set the medical‑scientific criteria for assessing causal connection in the specified claims context.

Citations: sections 3, 5, 8, 9(1), 10(1)-(2), 11; Schedule definitions.

The instrument contains no express penalties, fine provisions, or criminal sanctions. It is a declaratory SoP made by the Repatriation Medical Authority under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA and is designed to guide determinations of causal connection in claims under section 120B of the VEA and section 339 of the MRCA (sections 3 and 5). Its legal effect is evidentiary and administrative rather than punitive.

Enforcement mechanism by implication. Enforcement in this context is administrative application. The SoP operates as the RMA’s authoritative statement of medical‑scientific factors that must be considered when decision makers determine entitlement under the referenced statutory provisions. The practical enforcement mechanism is the decision process for claims: assessors will apply the SoP when evaluating whether the required factors exist and are related to relevant service. The SoP itself does not set out who within the administrative hierarchy must apply it; the context provided by sections 3 and 5 indicates it applies to those assessing claims under section 120B VEA and section 339 MRCA.

No sanctions for non-compliance stated in the SoP. The instrument does not specify consequences if a decision maker does not apply it. The SoP’s authority derives from the VEA (subsection 196B(3)) and is part of the statutory framework within which claims are assessed. Any consequences for failure to apply it correctly would derive from the statutory decision‑making and review mechanisms in the VEA and MRCA regimes, not from the SoP text itself. The instrument does not set out those mechanisms.

Evidence and proof burdens implicitly shifted to claimants. While the SoP does not frame burdens of proof in the language of procedural law, it does specify what must be established , the enumerated factor(s) and their relationship to relevant service , to make out connection on the balance of probabilities (sections 9 and 10). Practically, this requires claimants to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the civil standard. The SoP therefore constrains the evidentiary threshold decision makers will test against, but it does not itself create enforcement penalties.

Administrative review and litigation. The SoP does not mention review routes or litigation. Any challenge to a decision that applies the SoP will proceed through the ordinary statutory dispute resolution mechanisms available under the VEA and MRCA. The instrument itself does not prescribe or modify those pathways.

Citations: sections 3, 5, 8, 9(1), 10(1)-(2); note absence of penalty or enforcement provisions within instrument text.

Primary statutory anchoring. The SoP is explicitly made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (section 3) and applies to claims governed by section 120B of the VEA and section 339 of the MRCA (section 5). Its legal role is to supply medical‑scientific factors for claims decisions under those statutory provisions. The instrument’s legal operation therefore sits inside the VEA/MRCA statutory architecture; it does not itself amend the substantive entitlements or the decision‑making powers those Acts confer.

Relationship to other Statements of Principles. Section 11 provides an explicit interaction rule with other SoPs. If a factor in section 9 is applied in relation to a person and that factor refers to an injury or disease for which another SoP has been determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, then the factors in that other SoP apply according to its terms. That creates a mechanism for cross-application and hierarchical interaction among SoPs when conditions overlap or when contributory factors fall under different SoPs.

Interaction with ICD-10-AM coding. The instrument notes that ganglion attracts ICD‑10‑AM code M67.4 but clarifies that the statutory meaning of ganglion for the purposes of this SoP is the textual definition in subsection 7(2) (sections 7(3)-(4)). It therefore uses the ICD classification as a reference point but confirms that the instrument’s definition controls the application of the SoP. The instrument also provides the specific edition and effective date of the ICD‑10‑AM it cites, namely the Tenth Edition effective 1 July 2017 (section 7(4)). This anchors the coding reference to a particular published edition.

Temporal repeal and replacement. Section 4 repeals the prior SoP concerning ganglion (No. 72 of 2016, Federal Register No. F2016L01353). The instrument thus replaces the earlier instrument; any prior determinations made under the 2016 SoP will be affected for claims processed after the commencement date insofar as decision makers apply the current SoP’s factors. The text does not set out transitional arrangements; the repeal is expressed as a direct repeal of the prior named SoP.

Limits imposed by the Schedule definition of relevant service. The Schedule defines relevant service for this SoP and thereby delimits the range of service circumstances to which the SoP can apply. The Schedule’s definition excludes operational service in the war service category and hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service in the defence service category. Claims that relate to those excluded service types will not fall within the SoP’s stated scope of application and therefore decision makers must look to other applicable tests in the governing Acts or other SoPs where relevant.

No explicit displacement of VEA/MRCA rights or processes. The SoP does not purport to alter the substantive rights, appeal routes, or review procedures that the VEA or MRCA provide. It sets out the RMA’s medical opinion on causation and the factors that decision makers should use when applying the statutory tests. Any interaction with appeals, review rights, or administrative law remedies is governed by the broader statutory framework, not by the text of this SoP.

Citations: sections 3, 4, 5, 7(3)-(4), 11; Schedule definitions.

This instrument is self-contained in terms of the amendment record it records. It expressly repeals the previous Statement of Principles concerning ganglion (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 72 of 2016) (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2016L01353) (section 4). The instrument is dated 17 December 2024 (as signed by the Chairperson of the Repatriation Medical Authority, Professor Terence Campbell AM) and commences on 28 January 2025 (section 2 and the front of the instrument). The title identifies it as Statement of Principles concerning ganglion (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 8 of 2025) (front matter).

No internal amendment provisions are contained in the instrument. The text does not set out a scheduled sunset, staged commencement, or transitional arrangements for claims commenced before the commencement date. The only express historical link is the repeal of the 2016 SoP. The instrument does not detail the substantive differences between the 2016 and 2025 instruments; it only records that the earlier named instrument is repealed.

Consequences for historical claims. Because the instrument repeals the 2016 SoP, decision makers assessing claims after the commencement date will apply this SoP in place of the 2016 version when the statutory provisions referenced in section 5 are engaged. The instrument contains no express savings clause preserving the old SoP for claims lodged or decided prior to commencement. The legal effect of the repeal and whether it applies to decisions made before commencement will depend on the administrative application of the statutory regime and any transitional policies the administering agency adopts; the instrument itself does not specify those details.

No recorded amendments after commencement are present in the text supplied. Any future amendments would appear as separate instruments or as replacement SoPs issued under the same subsection of the VEA. The instrument identifies the specific ICD‑10‑AM edition it references (Tenth Edition, effective 1 July 2017), which is an implicit temporal marker for the coding reference used at the time of issuing this SoP (section 7(4)).

Citations: front matter date, sections 2 and 4, section 7(4).

The instrument contains no citations to cases, no references to judicial determinations, and no reported litigation history. It is a statement of the Repatriation Medical Authority’s medical‑scientific view, issued under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, and the text itself does not record judicial consideration or preceding determinations by courts or tribunals.

Implications of absence of litigation references. Because the instrument provides no case citations or summaries, there is no judicially recorded interpretive history attached to the SoP text itself. Decision makers and practitioners should therefore be aware that any application or challenge of the SoP in the courts or tribunals will involve fresh legal and medical argument as to how the factors are to be applied within the statutory framework of the VEA and MRCA. The instrument does not provide guidance on how courts or tribunals have previously interpreted equivalent or prior SoPs.

Practical consequence for evidence and argument. In the absence of judicial gloss within the SoP, practitioners should expect that novel factual combinations and borderline scenarios may require administrative or judicial interpretation of how the single enumerated factor, the timing limitations, and the definition of ganglion operate in practice. The SoP itself establishes the RMA’s position, but does not record authoritative judicial construction. Any litigation history that later develops will provide such construction; as of the instrument text, none is recorded.

Caveat on sources. The instrument stands as the RMA’s medical statement; absent judicial decisions cited in the text, reliance on the instrument for claims assessment must be grounded in its express language. Any legal challenges or appeals will therefore need to base argumentation on statutory context, the SoP wording, and external medical evidence rather than on any precedent cited within the instrument.

Citations: absence of case references in the instrument as supplied.

Narrow, textual definition controls over ICD coding. The instrument notes that ganglion attracts ICD‑10‑AM code M67.4 but states that, in applying the SoP, the meaning of ganglion is that given in subsection 7(2) (section 7(3)). Practitioners should not rely solely on ICD coding. The SoP’s explicit exclusions , cyst of bursa, epidermoid cyst, ganglion in yaws, synovial cyst, and Tarlov cyst , mean that diagnoses labelled generically as "cyst" or mapped to the ICD code must be checked against the text definition to confirm they fall within the SoP.

Single enumerated factor. The SoP lists only one factor in section 9(1): inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for ganglion before clinical worsening. That is the factor the RMA has determined must exist for a finding of connection on the balance of probabilities, subject to the relational and temporal limits in section 10. Practitioners should note that other plausible factual scenarios are not enumerated in this SoP; reliance on other factors will require either invocation of other SoPs under section 11 or argument that the statutory tests under the VEA/MRCA are otherwise met.

Temporal limitation on the factor. Section 10(2) limits the section 9(1) factor to situations where the ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during the person’s relevant service, and did not arise out of the service. If the ganglion arose out of service, the enumerated inability-to-access-care factor in section 9(1) is not the mechanism by which aggravation or material contribution is to be established under this SoP. Practitioners must therefore be precise about timing: whether the condition pre-existed, was suffered/contracted during service but not out of service, or arose out of service.

Definition of relevant service excludes some categories. The Schedule defines relevant service in a way that excludes operational service (within the war service category) and hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service (within the defence service category) (Schedule - relevant service). Claims linked to those excluded categories may not be governed by this SoP. Practitioners should map the claimant’s precise service type to the Schedule definition before relying on the SoP.

Burden of proving inability to obtain appropriate management. The required factor is an inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (section 9(1)). This demands evidence both of the lack of access and of the timing relative to clinical worsening. Contemporaneous records showing attempts to access care, administrative records (for example appointment logs and waiting lists), correspondence, and clinical notes documenting progression will be the sorts of materials necessary to satisfy assessors that the inability existed prior to worsening. The SoP itself does not define "appropriate clinical management" or "clinical worsening", so there will be interpretive work required by assessors and practitioners to establish what constitutes those thresholds in each case.

Death claims require causal link to terminal event. For death claims the SoP extends to "death from ganglion" where the ganglion contributed to a terminal event or condition (section 7(5)). The Schedule defines terminal events by example. Practitioners should ensure the medical evidence links ganglion to the terminal event, rather than relying on an attribution of cause that is too attenuated. The SoP requires that ganglion contributed to the terminal event; bare temporal coincidence will be insufficient.

Cross-reliance on other SoPs when factors refer to other conditions. Section 11 mandates that where a factor in section 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, the factors in that other SoP apply. This can create complexity for multifactorial claims. Practitioners must identify whether any referenced injury or disease has its own SoP and, if so, ensure compliance with its terms.

No transitional detail provided. The repeal of the 2016 SoP is direct (section 4) and the instrument commences on a specified date (section 2). The instrument does not state transitional arrangements. This absence means practitioners need to check administrative guidance from the decision-making agency about whether and how claims pending at commencement will be treated.

Citations: sections 7(2)-(4), 9(1), 10(1)-(2), 11; Schedule definitions.

For claimants and representatives

1. Confirm applicability. First, confirm the claim falls within the statutory sections specified: section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA (section 5). Next, map the claimant’s service to the Schedule definition of "relevant service" to ensure the SoP applies (Schedule - relevant service).

2. Diagnose to the SoP definition. Obtain and document a clinical diagnosis that fits the SoP’s textual definition of ganglion in subsection 7(2). Because the instrument’s definition controls over ICD coding (section 7(3)), ensure medical reports explicitly describe the lesion as a benign, cystic lesion overlying a joint or tendon with a thin fibrous capsule and clear mucinous fluid, and not one of the listed exclusions.

3. Evidence the enumerated factor. The required factor in section 9(1) is inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for ganglion before clinical worsening. Collect contemporaneous evidence showing:

   • attempts to obtain care, including dates and communications with providers;
   • waiting list information, cancellations, or records of unavailable services;
   • clinical notes demonstrating the timing of clinical deterioration or "worsening";
   • statements from treating clinicians about what management would have been appropriate and whether it was unavailable;
   • administrative records from Defence or the Department relevant to care access during relevant service periods, if applicable. The SoP does not define "appropriate clinical management" or "clinical worsening" precisely; therefore practitioner evidence should aim to define those terms for the assessor using accepted clinical standards and contemporaneous notes.

4. Link factor to relevant service. Under section 10(1) the factor relied on must be related to relevant service. For circumstances covered by section 10(2) (where the ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during relevant service and did not arise out of it), demonstrate how the inability to obtain management was a consequence of or otherwise connected to the claimant’s relevant service. This may require service records, postings and location evidence, administrative evidence showing denial or non-provision of care during service, or other material tying the access failure to the service circumstances.

5. Death claims. For claims alleging death from ganglion, obtain medical evidence establishing that the ganglion contributed to a terminal event or condition, and supply cause-of-death medical records demonstrating the causal link. The Schedule examples of terminal events should guide the medical narrative, but the overriding requirement is evidence of contribution from the ganglion.

6. Where another SoP is implicated. If any part of the argument refers to an injury or disease that is governed by another SoP, identify that SoP and ensure compliance with its factors as required by section 11.

For decision makers and medical assessors

1. Apply the textual definition. Use subsection 7(2) as the primary diagnostic yardstick for ganglion. While ICD‑10‑AM code M67.4 is noted, the definition in the SoP controls the condition’s scope for purposes of claims assessment (sections 7(2)-(4)).

2. Test the factor against evidence. Require claimants to establish on the balance of probabilities the existence of the factor in section 9(1) and its relationship to relevant service under section 10(1). For cases invoking section 10(2), verify that the ganglion was suffered or contracted before or during relevant service and did not arise out of service, and that inability to obtain appropriate clinical management materially contributed to or aggravated the condition.

3. Clarify ambiguous terms with medical opinion. Because the SoP uses terms that are not precisely defined in the text , for example "appropriate clinical management" and "clinical worsening" , seek and rely on contemporaneous treating clinicians’ opinions, specialist reports, and, where necessary, independent medical examination to define those thresholds in the factual context of the claimant.

4. Manage cross-SoP cases. Where an issue or factor refers to a condition covered by another SoP, apply section 11 and incorporate the other SoP’s factors according to its terms. Ensure record keeping clearly identifies when cross-application occurs and which SoP governs which aspect of the causal chain.

5. Record reasoning on causation. For administrative review and potential appeals, document how the SoP’s factor(s) were applied, how the relationship to relevant service was established or rejected, and how any relevant medical evidence defined the key terms used by the SoP.

6. Consider timing and transitional aspects. Be clear whether the claim was lodged before or after commencement (28 January 2025) and apply the current SoP to claims to which section 5 says it applies. When in doubt about whether a historical decision should be revisited, follow agency policy or seek legal advice about transitional application, recognising the SoP itself contains no transitional clause.

Evidence checklist summary

• Clinical diagnosis matching subsection 7(2).
• Explicit exclusion check against subsection 7(2)(b).
• Medical records documenting attempts to obtain management and timing of any clinical worsening.
• Service records tying inability to obtain care to periods or circumstances of relevant service as defined in the Schedule.
• Specialist reports addressing what would have constituted appropriate management and whether lack of it materially contributed to worsening.
• For death claims, cause-of-death documentation and medical opinion linking ganglion contribution to the terminal event.

Citations: sections 5, 7(2)-(5), 8, 9(1), 10(1)-(2), 11; Schedule definitions.