Statement of Principles concerning Ross River virus infection (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 95 of 2019)

This instrument centres on a small set of interlocking medical and legal concepts defined or applied in the text and the Schedule. They are the operative definitions that decision-makers and practitioners must apply.

Ross River virus infection: The SoP defines the disease as a symptomatic, clinical illness caused by infection with Ross River virus (s 7(2)). The instrument records that the virus is transmitted by Aedes and Culex mosquitoes and lists typical symptoms , fever with arthralgia, rash, myalgia and lethargy , as notes to s 7(2). The instrument also records that Ross River virus infection attracts ICD‑10‑AM code B33.1 but instructs that the definition in s 7(2) is to be used when applying this SoP (s 7(3)‑(4)).

Death from Ross River virus infection: The SoP treats death as included where the death is from a terminal event or condition contributed to by the person’s Ross River virus infection (s 7(5)). The Schedule defines "terminal event" broadly, listing pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure and cessation of brain function (Schedule 1).

Exposure and transmission geography: The instrument defines "being exposed to the Ross River virus" to include being bitten by a mosquito infected with the virus or receiving blood, blood products, stem cell or organ transplants derived from an infected person (Schedule 1). It sets a circumscribed list of countries and geographic areas that have experienced Ross River virus transmission: American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, East Timor, Fiji, French Polynesia, Indonesia east of the Weber line, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Wallis and Futuna (Schedule 1). The Schedule contains a note explaining the Weber line’s biological/geographical meaning, which is relevant to the "Indonesia east of the Weber line" entry.

Relevant service: The instrument applies to claims where the person rendered "relevant service" as defined in the Schedule. That term is defined by reference to the statutory schemes: 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). The SoP therefore operates within the entitlement frameworks of the VEA and MRCA (s 5).

Temporal linkage: The SoP prescribes a specific incubation or latency window for the key exposure factors: exposure or being in an affected geographic area must have occurred between three and 21 days before the clinical onset of Ross River virus infection (s 9(1)‑(2)). That window is the exclusive temporal test for the s 9(1) and s 9(2) factors.

Causal factors and relationship to service: The SoP lists three factors in s 9; at least one must exist for a positive connection. Those are: (1) being exposed to Ross River virus in the specified 3 to 21 day window (s 9(1)); (2) being in a listed country or geographic area with Ross River virus transmission in that 3 to 21 day window (s 9(2)); and (3) inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for Ross River virus infection (s 9(3)). Section 10 requires that any factor from s 9 be related to the person’s relevant service (s 10(1)). Section 10(2) limits the application of s 9(3) to circumstances where the infection was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, the person’s relevant service and concerns material contribution or aggravation.

Standard of proof and scope: The instrument is expressed in terms of "balance of probabilities". The Repatriation Medical Authority states that, on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is of the view that it is more probable than not that Ross River virus infection and death from Ross River virus infection can be related to relevant service (s 8). This confirms the civil standard and frames how the SoP is to be used in claims determinations.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles: If a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another SoP, then the factors in that other SoP apply as in force from time to time (s 11). This creates an explicit rule for resolving overlaps with other medically grounded SoPs made under s 196B(3) of the VEA.

Collectively these concepts determine what evidence and causal link a decision-maker will look for when assessing whether a claimant’s Ross River virus infection or death from that infection is connected to their relevant service.

The instrument applies to claimants and decision-makers in the VEA and MRCA systems. Section 5 states the scope: the SoP applies to a claim to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies. Those cross-references identify the types of claims within the respective statutory schemes where the Repatriation Medical Authority’s SoP is relevant. The instrument itself does not amend those statutes; it prescribes the medical-causal framework used to assess connection in those claim types.

Primary persons affected:

• Veterans, former members and serving members who seek to establish that Ross River virus infection, or death from it, is connected to their relevant service. The instrument governs the medical-causal threshold that must be met to establish such a connection under the specified claim provisions (s 5, Schedule 1 relevant service).
• Members who rendered the kinds of "relevant service" defined in the Schedule: eligible war service other than operational, defence service other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service, and peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). The SoP therefore affects people whose service falls within these categories.

Secondary persons and bodies affected:

• Decision-makers in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (or the MRCA administrative process) who apply SoPs when assessing claims. The SoP provides the RMA’s view on medical causation and lists the factors that must exist for a decision-maker to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that RRV infection is connected to relevant service (s 8, s 9).
• Medical assessors and practitioners who prepare medical reports for claimants, since the SoP defines the clinical and temporal criteria that will be used to evaluate evidence (s 7, s 9, Schedule 1).
• Legal representatives and advocates who prepare claims and evidence for hearings or reviews. The SoP constrains which types of evidence and causal arguments will satisfy the statutory test of connection in the claim types specified.

Geographic coverage and service contexts: The Schedule’s list of countries and areas that have experienced Ross River virus transmission explicitly includes Australia (Schedule 1). That means exposure occurring within Australia is capable of satisfying s 9(2)’s geographical factor, subject to the required temporal linkage and relationship to relevant service (s 9(2), s 10(1)). The list also includes several Pacific islands and an entry for "Indonesia east of the Weber line", which requires the assessor to interpret the geographic scope for any service that occurred in parts of Indonesia (Schedule 1).

Procedural and evidentiary consequences for claimants: Because the SoP requires at least one enumerated factor and a relation between that factor and the person’s relevant service (s 9, s 10), claimants must adduce evidence that proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the factor existed within the specified temporal window and that it was related to the relevant service. The instrument’s definitions of "being exposed" and "terminal event" (Schedule 1) identify types of exposure and causal pathways that a claimant can allege.

Who does not get affected directly by this instrument: The SoP does not itself create criminal offences, fines or regulatory duties imposed on non-claimant third parties; nor does it amend the substantive entitlements in the VEA or MRCA other than by supplying the medical-causal criteria decision-makers will apply in the specified claims (see s 5). It also does not purport to create entitlements for infections acquired entirely outside the frameworks of the defined relevant service unless the requisite relation to relevant service is established (s 10(1)).

This instrument creates neither criminal duties nor express private rights. It prescribes medical-causal criteria that are used in statutory decision-making about entitlements. The key operative duties and rights flow from how the SoP is applied in the VEA and MRCA claim processes and from the definitional and evidentiary gates the SoP sets.

Duties (as to proof and relation to service):

• A claimant who seeks to establish that Ross River virus infection (or death from the infection) is connected to their relevant service must, in effect, satisfy the causal template in the SoP. That requires that at least one of the listed factors in s 9 exists and that the factor is related to the claimant’s relevant service (s 9, s 10(1)). The instrument places that obligation implicitly as a condition for a positive finding of connection because it prescribes the factors that "must exist" before it can be said, on the balance of probabilities, that the infection is connected to service (s 9).
• For claims that rely on inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s 9(3)), the application of that factor is confined to material contribution to, or aggravation of, Ross River virus infection where the infection was suffered or contracted before or during but did not arise out of the person’s relevant service (s 10(2)). That creates a specific sub-condition for the operation of s 9(3).

Rights and decision‑making consequences:

• Claimants have a procedural right that the decision-maker will apply the SoP where the claim falls within the stated application (s 5). The RMA’s SoP states the medical-scientific view it will adopt and so shapes the standard of causation for connection findings in the relevant claim types (s 8).
• The SoP defines the disease for the purposes of connection assessments: Ross River virus infection is defined by s 7(2) and the disease code reference in s 7(3) is explicitly subordinated to that definition. This means that a claimant alleging RRV infection must satisfy the s 7(2) definition as applied in the SoP context, not rely solely on the ICD‑10‑AM code as determinative (s 7(2)‑(4)).

Prescriptive elements that affect evidence and assessment:

• Temporal proof: where a claimant relies on s 9(1) or s 9(2), they must establish that exposure or presence in a transmission area occurred between three and 21 days before clinical onset (s 9(1)‑(2)). This imposes a temporal proof obligation as a matter of logic in claim assessment.
• Exposure modalities: a claimant may establish "being exposed" either by a mosquito bite or by receipt of blood, blood products, stem cell or organ transplants derived from an infected person (Schedule 1). The inclusion of transfusion/transplant pathways enlarges the set of potential exposure evidence beyond vector bites.
• Death causation: for a death to be treated as death from Ross River virus infection under this SoP, the death must be from a terminal event or condition that the infection contributed to (s 7(5), Schedule 1 terminal event definition). That ties death outcomes to a causal contribution standard.

Discretion and administrative practice:

• The SoP itself is framed as the RMA's view on what is "more probable than not" on available medical-scientific evidence (s 8). Implementation necessarily requires administrative and medical assessment of evidence against the SoP factors. The instrument does not prescribe the exact evidentiary modalities or thresholds for proving an exposure, a lack of clinical management, or the relation to service; these are left to claim processes and assessing clinicians.

Procedural interaction with other SoPs:

• If a s 9 factor refers to another disease or injury covered by a different SoP, then the provisions of that other SoP apply according to their terms (s 11). This creates a duty on decision-makers to consult and apply relevant provisions of other SoPs when factors overlap.

The instrument therefore imposes a framework of obligations on claimants to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a listed causal factor existed and was related to their relevant service, and it confers on decision-makers the right and duty to apply these criteria when resolving eligible claims (s 5, s 8‑10).

The Statement of Principles itself contains no penalty provisions, enforcement mechanisms, or administrative sanctions. It is not a criminal instrument, a regulatory rule with fines, nor a statutory schedule of penalties. Instead, it is a technical instrument that supplies medical-causal criteria for use in decision-making under other statutes. The SoP’s operative effect is to influence determinations about entitlement under the VEA and MRCA by establishing what causal relationships the Repatriation Medical Authority regards as sufficiently probable (s 3, s 5, s 8).

Enforcement and application context:

• Decisions about whether a claimant meets entitlement thresholds remain matters for the decision-makers and administrative processes created under the VEA and the MRCA. The SoP tells those decision-makers which medical factors and definitions to treat as determinative for the purposes of establishing a causal link between Ross River virus infection and relevant service (s 5, s 8‑9).
• Any statutory consequences (for example, payment of benefits, treatment entitlements, pension adjustments) flow from determinations under the VEA and MRCA. The SoP informs those determinations but does not itself pay benefits, impose sanctions, or prescribe administrative remedies.

What the instrument requires of decision-makers:

• The RMA asserts its medical‑scientific view that the causal connections listed are more likely than not (s 8). Administrative decision-makers are expected to apply SoPs like this one in adjudicating claims referenced in s 5, consistent with the statutory frameworks that grant authority to the RMA to make such statements (s 3). The SoP thus functions as binding guidance in the administrative assessment of causal connection where the statutory process requires application of RMA SoPs, although the instrument itself does not include enforcement language.

Absence of independent enforcement apparatus:

• There is no enforcement body named in the instrument to police compliance beyond the ordinary claims management and review mechanisms under the VEA and MRCA. The instrument does not prescribe compliance audits, inspections, or civil penalties for non-compliance by third parties.

Practical enforcement implication:

• If a decision-maker finds that the claimant satisfies the SoP’s factors and the relevant statutory tests, the decision-maker will effectuate the statutory consequences in the VEA or MRCA claims system. Conversely, if the SoP’s factors are not met, the claimant will not meet the causation criterion the SoP embodies and the decision-maker will be likely to decline the connection element of entitlement. Those statutory decisions, and any disputes about their correctness, will be resolved through the review and appeal mechanisms provided by the VEA and MRCA, not by direct enforcement of the SoP itself.

In sum, this instrument is a medical-causal standard that shapes entitlement adjudication. It does not create new penalties or an independent enforcement regime; it functions through administrative application in the VEA/MRCA decision frameworks (s 3, s 5, s 8).

The Statement of Principles is a subordinate instrument made under the VEA and designed to be applied within the statutory frameworks of the VEA and the MRCA. Its operation and inter-legal interactions are explicitly limited and set out in the instrument.

Statutory authority and application:

• The instrument is made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (s 3). Its legal force derives from that statutory authority and the administrative practice of applying Repatriation Medical Authority SoPs in claims adjudication processes under the VEA and MRCA (s 5).
• Section 5 explicitly limits the instrument’s application to claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies. The SoP therefore interacts with those statutory provisions and must be read and applied in the context of the entitlements, procedures, and appeals mechanisms those statutes create.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles:

• The instrument contains an express cross-SoP interaction rule: if a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP made under s 196B(3) of the VEA, the factors in that other SoP apply according to their terms as in force from time to time (s 11). That provision mandates consilience with other RMA SoPs, so a single claim involving multiple possible disease pathways requires cross-referencing SoPs rather than attempting to treat them independently.

Use of clinical classification codes:

• The SoP notes that Ross River virus infection attracts ICD‑10‑AM code B33.1 (s 7(3)). However, the instrument is explicit that the definition of Ross River virus infection for the purposes of this SoP is the text in s 7(2), not the code alone (s 7(3)). The instrument also defines what is meant by a reference to an ICD‑10‑AM code, namely the Tenth Edition, effective 1 July 2017 (s 7(4)). This acknowledges the ICD classification system but prioritises the SoP textual definition in legal application.

Definitions that incorporate or reference other legislation:

• The Schedule defines "MRCA" and "VEA" and defines "relevant service" by reference to categories within those statutory schemes (Schedule 1). That creates an explicit dependency on how those Acts define service categories. The SoP’s application thus depends on the statutory construction of "relevant service" in the VEA and MRCA.

Geographic and scientific references with cross-border implications:

• The Schedule lists countries and geographic areas that have experienced Ross River virus transmission, including Australia and Pacific states (Schedule 1). The inclusion of overseas locations means the SoP intersects with conduct and service that occurred abroad, and requires decision-makers to consider foreign or regional epidemiological facts when applying the geographic factor in s 9(2).

No repeal or amendment of substantive statutes:

• The SoP does not amend the VEA or MRCA. It replaced a prior SoP (No. 91 of 2010) by repeal (s 4) but did not purport to change statutory entitlement rules. Its legal effect is to guide assessments of causal connection within the statutory claim mechanisms.

Evidence, administrative law and review pathways:

• The SoP will be applied in administrative determinations and court decisions that review those determinations. Although the instrument does not itself specify review rights, the VEA and MRCA contain processes for review and appeal. Disputes about the correct application of a SoP to a set of facts will therefore be resolved in those review forums, which may involve consideration of the RMA’s medical-scientific statements as part of the evidentiary and legal analysis.

In short, the instrument interacts with other laws by operating as an RMA medical-causal standard under the VEA’s delegated powers, by being invoked in specific claim provisions of the VEA and MRCA, by incorporating statutory definitions of relevant service, and by requiring cross-reference to other SoPs where factors overlap (s 3, s 5, s 7(3)‑(4), s 11, Schedule 1).

This Statement of Principles records a limited amendment history within the instrument itself. The key historical points in the text are these:

• Repeal of an earlier SoP: The instrument expressly repeals the Statement of Principles concerning Ross River virus infection No. 91 of 2010 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2010L02847) (s 4). That prior SoP is therefore replaced by this current instrument.
• Date of instrument and commencement: The instrument is dated 18 October 2019 (front page) and states that it commences on 18 November 2019 (s 2). The Repatriation Medical Authority applied its Common Seal to the instrument on the date shown (cover page).
• Authority for the instrument: It was made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (s 3). The instrument therefore sits in the line of RMA SoPs made under that statutory provision.
• Edition of ICD‑10‑AM referenced: The instrument references the ICD‑10‑AM Tenth Edition, effective 1 July 2017, as the classification edition for code B33.1 (s 7(4)). This indicates the version of the clinical classification that the drafters relied on for the code reference.
• No other amendments, revocations or modifications are recorded within the instrument text provided. There is no subsequent amendment schedule or cumulative amendment history included in the instrument.

Operational consequence of the repeal and replacement:

• Repealing the 2010 instrument and replacing it with No. 95 of 2019 means that from commencement (18 November 2019) the RMA’s stated medical-causal criteria for Ross River virus infection are those found in this instrument. Decision-makers applying SoPs after that date should apply the factors and definitions contained in this instrument instead of those in the 2010 instrument.

What is not recorded in the instrument:

• There is no record in the instrument itself of consultations, explanatory memoranda, or the RMA’s internal reasons beyond the statement that its conclusion is based on "sound medical‑scientific evidence" available (s 8). The instrument does not disclose whether it supersedes the prior SoP because of new epidemiological evidence, different medical interpretations, or administrative revision.
• The instrument does not list subsequent amendments, transitions, or partial savings beyond the express repeal of the 2010 instrument.

For practitioners, the practical amendment history to be aware of is the replacement of the 2010 SoP by this 2019 instrument and the commencement date of 18 November 2019. Any claims or reviews for periods crossing the repeal/commencement transition should consider which SoP applied at the relevant time, noting that this instrument states its own commencement and repeals the prior instrument (s 2, s 4).

The instrument as supplied contains no case law citations, no references to litigation about its content, and no recorded judicial or tribunal decisions interpreting this SoP. The text names no cases. The RMA’s statement refers only to its medical‑scientific view and the statutory authority under which the instrument is made (s 3, s 8). Therefore, within the instrument itself there is no litigation history to report.

Practical consequences for practitioners:

• Because the instrument does not contain internal references to judicial or tribunal treatment, practitioners should not infer from this instrument alone that courts or tribunals have adopted, rejected or qualified its content. Any such judicial or tribunal engagement would have to be identified from independent sources outside the instrument text.
• The absence of litigation references in the SoP does not preclude administrative or judicial review of decisions that apply this SoP in the future. Challenges to administrative decisions about entitlement that turn on the correct application or interpretation of this SoP would be pursued through the VEA and MRCA review and appeal pathways; outcomes of such proceedings would form the litigation history that practitioners would consult.

What a review of litigation would typically examine (contextual observation, not contained in instrument):

• In disputes over the application of an RMA SoP, tribunals or courts typically consider whether the decision-maker applied the SoP correctly, whether the factual findings were supported by evidence on the balance of probabilities, and whether the causal reasoning applied the SoP’s factors in accordance with law. None of those procedural or substantive points are addressed in the instrument itself.

Because the instrument contains no litigation history entry, practitioners preparing appeals or reviews must source any relevant decisions from administrative tribunal or court databases and cannot rely on the instrument text to reveal whether or how its provisions have been judicially construed.

This SoP contains a number of technical features and potential pitfalls that can materially affect claims and administrative assessments. The following points are derived from the instrument’s text and definitions and highlight areas where interpretation, evidentiary burden, or administrative practice may produce unexpected outcomes for claimants and decision-makers.

1. At least one factor must exist, and the factors are narrowly framed (s 9): The SoP requires that at least one of the three factors in s 9 exist for a finding of connection. That is a low numeric threshold but the substance of the factors is restrictive. Factors 9(1) and 9(2) both impose the same three-to-twenty-one day window before clinical onset. Evidence must therefore link exposure or presence in an affected area to the claimant’s clinical onset date within a precise temporal window. Missing or uncertain onset dates, or exposures outside that window, can defeat a claim even where the claimant was in a transmission area more generally.

2. The geographic list includes Australia (Schedule 1): The Schedule explicitly lists Australia among areas that have experienced Ross River virus transmission. That means domestic service can support a s 9(2) geographic factor, but the same temporal and service-relationship requirements apply. Practitioners should note that jurisdictional assumptions that RRV exposure is only an overseas issue are incorrect given this list.

3. "Being exposed" includes non-vector pathways (Schedule 1): The Schedule defines "being exposed to the Ross River virus" to include receipt of blood, blood products, stem cell transplants or organ transplants derived from an infected person. Claims that rely on transfusion or transplant exposures will require documentary evidence of such procedures and linkage to infectious donor material. The SoP therefore contemplates both vector and non-vector transmission pathways.

4. ICD‑10‑AM code is explicitly not determinative (s 7(3)‑(4)): The instrument records the ICD‑10‑AM code but insists that the statutory definition in s 7(2) governs application. Relying solely on an ICD diagnostic code in records may be insufficient; assessors must consider the SoP’s definition of RRV infection.

5. "Inability to obtain appropriate clinical management" (s 9(3)) is undefined: The instrument lists inability to obtain appropriate clinical management as a factor but does not define what constitutes inability or appropriate management. Section 10(2) also limits the scope of s 9(3) to cases where the infection was suffered or contracted before or during but did not arise out of relevant service. These features create an evidentiary and interpretive gap that decision-makers and clinicians must fill, creating potential for inconsistent application and administrative discretion.

6. Relationship to relevant service is required (s 10(1)): Even where a s 9 factor is established, the factor must be related to the relevant service rendered by the person. The SoP does not specify how "related" is to be measured, leaving that to the statutory context and decision-making practice. The need to demonstrate relation to relevant service frequently requires bridging evidence connecting the exposure event or location to the person’s service duties or deployment.

7. The s 9(3) factor is limited to material contribution or aggravation where infection pre-existed (s 10(2)): Practitioners should note that s 9(3) does not apply to infections that arose out of the service. It only applies to material contribution to or aggravation of an infection that was contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service. This distinction will be crucial where the claim seeks to rely on a lack of clinical management during service to establish causation.

8. Interaction with other SoPs can import additional requirements (s 11): If any s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, the other SoP’s factors apply as in force from time to time. This can complicate claims that cross disease categories and requires careful cross-referencing of SoPs to avoid missing additional criteria.

9. "Terminal event" definition may broaden death causation (Schedule 1): The Schedule’s list of terminal events includes broad categories (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function). A death from any of those may be considered death from Ross River virus infection if the infection contributed to the terminal event. Establishing "contribution" may be contested and requires medical causation evidence linking RRV infection as a contributing factor in the terminal event.

10. Evidence may be inherently difficult to obtain: The SoP’s temporal window, exposure requirements, and the undefined "inability to obtain appropriate clinical management" mean claimants will often need contemporaneous medical records, transfusion/transplant documentation, service location logs, and clear clinical onset dates. Absence of precise records will increase the risk that the SoP cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

11. The SoP does not set evidentiary modalities: The instrument does not prescribe what constitutes proof of exposure, presence in an area, or lack of appropriate management. That leaves scope for administrative discretion and for factual disputes in reviews and appeals.

12. Repeal of previous SoP may affect transitional analyses (s 4): Where incidents, claims, or treatments occurred when the prior 2010 SoP was in force, practitioners should check which SoP applies to a particular claim and whether transitional or temporal application rules in the VEA or MRCA affect the claim, because this instrument repealed the earlier SoP (s 4). The instrument itself is silent on transitional treatment.

These "gotchas" arise directly from the instrument’s text and the definitional choices it contains. Practitioners should map their evidence-gathering and legal arguments to the specific textual gateways in s 7, s 9, s 10 and the Schedule.

Compliance in this context means preparing and presenting a claim so that an adjudicator, applying this Statement of Principles, can conclude on the balance of probabilities that Ross River virus infection, or death from it, is connected with the person’s relevant service. The SoP defines the gates that must be passed; practical steps to address those gates follow from the SoP’s text.

1. Identify the legal claim pathway and confirm application of the SoP (s 5):

• Confirm that the claim is one to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies (s 5). If it is not within those claim types, this SoP is not the operative RMA statement for causal connection.

2. Establish the clinical diagnosis consistent with s 7(2):

• Ensure medical evidence records a symptomatic, clinical illness caused by Ross River virus as defined in s 7(2). While the SoP notes the ICD‑10‑AM code B33.1, the textual definition in s 7(2) governs (s 7(3)). Clinical records should therefore document symptoms and diagnostic findings that align with the SoP definition (fever with arthralgia, rash, myalgia, lethargy as typical symptoms are noted in the instrument).

3. Fix the clinical onset date:

• Establish the clinical onset date of Ross River virus infection in medical records. The temporal window in s 9 requires exposure or presence in a transmission area to occur between three and 21 days before clinical onset (s 9(1)‑(2)). Accurate onset dating is therefore crucial.

4. For exposure-based claims, demonstrate a s 9(1) or s 9(2) factor within the 3-21 day window:

• If relying on direct exposure (s 9(1)): gather evidence of mosquito bite(s) or of receiving blood, blood products, stem cell, or organ transplants from an infected donor within the three-to-twenty-one day window. Documentation might include medical notes of mosquito bite or bite clusters, transfusion/transplant records, pathology reports, or contemporaneous clinical notes identifying RRV exposure pathways. The Schedule defines "being exposed" to include mosquito bites and transfusion/transplant pathways (Schedule 1).
• If relying on geographical presence (s 9(2)): document that the claimant was in one of the listed countries or geographic areas during the three-to-twenty-one day window before clinical onset. Service records, travel logs, deployment orders, unit rosters, pay records or other official location records can establish presence in the specified area. The Schedule lists the countries and geographic areas that have experienced Ross River virus transmission and includes Australia, which is directly relevant for domestic service (Schedule 1).

5. Where appropriate, address s 9(3) 'inability to obtain appropriate clinical management':

• If relying on s 9(3), prepare evidence that appropriate clinical management was unavailable and show how that materially contributed to or aggravated the RRV infection. Remember that s 10(2) confines s 9(3) to material contribution or aggravation where the infection was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service. Evidence might include contemporaneous medical records showing delay or absence of appropriate care, service health facility logs documenting unavailability of suitable treatment, referrals that could not be attended due to service constraints, or corroborating statements. The SoP does not define "appropriate clinical management", so documentation should be sufficiently detailed to permit medical assessors to form a view that management was unavailable and that this unavailability materially influenced the infection’s course.

6. Demonstrate relation to relevant service (s 10(1)):

• For any s 9 factor relied upon, link that factor to the person’s defined "relevant service" in the Schedule (eligible war service other than operational service, defence service other than hazardous or British nuclear test defence service, or peacetime service under the MRCA). Use service records, deployment orders, and unit/operational records to show how the exposure or lack of management is causally connected to the service rendered. The SoP requires the factor to be "related to the relevant service" before a positive connection can be found (s 10(1)).

7. If s 9 factors touch other diseases or SoPs, cross-reference those instruments (s 11):

• Identify whether any relied s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another SoP. If so, determine and comply with the factors of that other SoP, because s 11 requires the factors in the other SoP to be applied as in force from time to time.

8. For death claims, link the death to a terminal event contributed to by RRV infection (s 7(5), Schedule 1):

• If the claim concerns death, provide medical evidence that the death was from a terminal event or condition to which Ross River virus infection contributed (s 7(5)). The Schedule lists illustrative terminal events. Medical cause-of-death certificates, post-mortem reports, hospital records and treating clinician statements will be central.

9. Prepare for evidentiary challenges and probative tests:

• The SoP operates on a balance of probabilities standard framed by the RMA’s medical-scientific view (s 8). Prepare to demonstrate that the claimed facts are more likely than not, using contemporaneous records where possible. Given the narrow temporal windows and potential ambiguity in defining "inability to obtain appropriate clinical management", contemporaneous detail materially improves the prospect of satisfying the SoP.

10. Anticipate cross-jurisdictional and interpretive issues:

• Where service or exposure occurred in regions described in the Schedule with geographic qualifiers such as "Indonesia east of the Weber line", assemble supporting evidence or expert clarifications to establish whether the claimant’s location falls within the defined area (Schedule 1). If relying on diagnostic coding, remember that the SoP’s textual definition controls over the ICD code reference (s 7(3)‑(4)).

11. Use medical expert evidence to bridge gaps:

• Where records are incomplete, medical expert reports that link the clinical history, onset timing and documented exposures to a probable RRV diagnosis and causal connection to service can be decisive. Experts should be asked to apply the SoP’s factors explicitly and to state conclusions on whether the factors are satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

12. Preserve and present contemporaneous evidence of service and medical care:

• For practical compliance, ensure service personnel and veterans gather service location records, medical encounter notes, unit diaries, transfusion/transplant records, diagnostic test results, clinician letters, and cause of death documentation as relevant. Because the SoP sets specific factual gates, contemporaneous documentation reduces the risk that the claim cannot meet the s 9 and s 10 thresholds.

13. Consider timing and retroactivity issues:

• This SoP commenced on 18 November 2019 and repealed the 2010 SoP (s 2, s 4). For incidents occurring before commencement, check whether transitional rules or the timing of an application mean the prior SoP is relevant. The instrument itself does not state a transitional regime.

Following these steps anchors evidence-gathering and legal submissions to the precise textual requirements of the SoP (s 7, s 9, s 10, Schedule 1), increasing the likelihood that a decision-maker can find, on the balance of probabilities, a causal connection between Ross River virus infection or death from it and the claimant’s relevant service.