Statement of Principles concerning tooth loss (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 29 of 2025)

The instrument revolves around several discrete legal-medical concepts that structure entitlement assessment.

Definition of tooth loss: The instrument defines “tooth loss” as partial or complete permanent loss of a tooth (enamel and dentine) of the natural secondary dentition, with or without a retained dental root; it includes surgical extraction and expressly excludes superficial tooth wear confined to enamel (section 7(2)(a)-(c)). The Schedule clarifies that “secondary dentition” is the 32 permanent teeth (Note 1 to section 7(2)). The instrument also notes that tooth loss may involve tooth substance, the gomphosis or the alveolar bone (Note 2 to section 7(2)).

Clinical coding reference: While tooth loss “attracts” ICD‑10‑AM codes K08.1 or K08.3, the instrument states that the statutory meaning is the subsection definition (section 7(3)). It also specifies the particular ICD‑10‑AM edition and effective date being referenced (section 7(4)), but the enacted definition remains the textual subsection.

Death from tooth loss: The instrument treats death as within scope where a terminal event or condition was contributed to by the person’s tooth loss (section 7(5)). The Schedule defines “terminal event” and lists five examples: pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, and cessation of brain function (Schedule, terminal event).

Basis for the factors: The Repatriation Medical Authority expressly states it is of the view that sound medical‑scientific evidence indicates that tooth loss and death from tooth loss can be related to relevant service (section 8). That is the declaratory basis for prescribing the factors in section 9.

Factors that must exist (causation threshold): The instrument sets a minimum evidentiary threshold: at least one of the enumerated factors in section 9 must exist to raise a “reasonable hypothesis” connecting the tooth loss or death with service. The factors are clinical diagnoses and events (dental caries, periodontitis, periodontal abscess, pulp/apical disease, fracture involving dentine, luxation, traumatic avulsion, alveolar bone fracture, exposure to head/neck radiotherapy where the tooth was in the radiation field within four years, pericoronitis at the time of the dental decision to extract, ribavirin use at clinical onset, and inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) (section 9(1)-(12)). There is a clinical timing limitation on the radiotherapy factor (within four years) and a special application rule for the inability‑to‑obtain‑management factor (section 9(9) and section 10(2)).

Relation to service and cross‑references: Section 10 requires that any factor relied upon must be related to the person’s relevant service (as defined in the Schedule). Section 11 provides a mechanism for integrating other Statements of Principles when a factor refers to an injury or disease already the subject of another Statement.

Operational effect: The instrument is thus an internal, statutory medical standard for administrative decision‑making on VEA/MRCA claims. It defines the injury, enumerates the minimum factors for a reasonable hypothesis of service connection, and prescribes how those factors interact with service categories and other Statements. It does not, in the text provided, prescribe benefit levels, penalties, or process timelines.

Primary affected persons: The immediate subjects of this instrument are persons making claims under the VEA or the MRCA where section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA apply (section 5). Those are the statutory hooks that bring a claimant within this Statement of Principles. The Schedule defines “relevant service” to include operational service, peacekeeping service, hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service under the VEA, and warlike or non‑warlike service under the MRCA (Schedule, relevant service). Thus, service members and veterans whose service falls into any of those categories are within the coverage of the Statement when making an applicable claim.

Medical personnel and assessors: The Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) is the authority that determined the Statement (section 3). The instrument supplies the medical‑scientific criteria that treating clinicians, claims medical examiners, and administrative decision‑makers will be expected to apply when assessing whether a reasonable hypothesis of service connection exists. Clinicians and forensic dental experts will be relied upon to provide the clinical evidence referenced by the factors listed in section 9 (for example, evidence of dental caries, periodontitis, abscess, pulp disease, fractures, luxation, avulsion, or radiotherapy fields).

Administrative decision‑makers and legal advisers: Decision-makers applying the VEA/MRCA claims processes will use this instrument to determine causation. Where a factor points to an injury or disease already covered by another Statement of Principles, the decision‑maker must apply that other Statement’s terms in accordance with section 11.

Dependants and estates: The instrument also covers death where the death was contributed to by tooth loss (section 7(5)). That means that claims brought by dependants or estates under the applicable sections of the VEA/MRCA, when they hinge on causation to tooth loss, will be governed by the criteria in this instrument.

Service providers, record‑keepers and healthcare administrators: The factors require documentary clinical evidence in many instances (for example, dental records, radiotherapy records, prescription records for ribavirin, records showing inability to obtain clinical management). Thus, those who hold clinical and service records are indirectly affected because the availability, completeness and specificity of those records will materially affect claim outcomes.

Excluded or limited categories: The instrument’s own definition excludes superficial tooth wear confined to enamel (section 7(2)(c)). The instrument also imposes a timing limitation on the radiotherapy factor (within four years prior to clinical onset) (section 9(9)) and a narrow application for the “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” factor, which applies only where the tooth loss was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service and then only to material contribution or aggravation (section 10(2)). Those are internal delimitations that narrow the circumstances in which certain factors can be relied upon.

Geographic and temporal scope: The instrument commences on 25 March 2025 (section 2). The text does not itself specify retrospective or prospective cut‑offs beyond this commencement, nor does it amend the substantive VEA or MRCA provisions; it replaces the 2015 Statement of Principles (section 4), so decisions made after commencement will use this Statement in place of the older instrument wherever the statutory claim provisions apply.

Nature of duties and rights: This instrument is a Statement of Principles setting evidentiary/causation criteria. It does not itself create statutory entitlements or monetary liabilities in the text provided; rather, it prescribes the conditions under which a reasonable hypothesis can be raised that tooth loss (or death from tooth loss) is connected to relevant service. Practically, the instrument functions as a determinant of what evidence is necessary to initiate or support a claim under the referenced provisions of the VEA and MRCA.

Minimum evidentiary duty: The core legal duty the instrument imposes on a claimant seeking to establish a reasonable hypothesis is to demonstrate that at least one of the factors listed in section 9 existed in relation to the affected tooth at the relevant time. The instrument states, “At least one of the following factors must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting tooth loss or death from tooth loss with the circumstances of a person's relevant service” (section 9). That is the minimum threshold the Repatriation Medical Authority has set.

Causal relation duty: Section 10(1) imposes a further duty: any factor relied upon must be related to the person’s relevant service. The Schedule defines “relevant service” (Schedule, relevant service). Therefore, claimants must link the clinical factor to the service category in the Schedule.

Special rule for pre-existing tooth loss: Section 10(2) narrows the operation of the “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” factor (section 9(12)). That factor applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, tooth loss where the person’s tooth loss was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the relevant service. In other words, for this factor to operate the claimant must show pre‑existing tooth loss that was materially worsened by inability to obtain care.

Cross-Statement application: Section 11 establishes a duty to apply other Statements of Principles where a section 9 factor refers to an injury or disease already the subject of another Statement. If a factor “refers to an injury or disease in respect of which a Statement of Principles has been determined,” the other Statement’s factors “apply in accordance with the terms of that Statement” (section 11). That produces a duty on decision‑makers to consult and apply relevant cross‑Statements.

Rights of claimants: The instrument gives claimants a clear, prescribed set of medical factors that, if established and connected to relevant service, will raise a reasonable hypothesis. That is a practical right to have claims assessed against these standards. The instrument also clarifies what kinds of clinical findings are within scope (for example, surgical extraction is included; superficial enamel wear is excluded) (section 7(2)).

No penalisation or administrative duties in the instrument: The Statement itself does not impose sanctions, administrative penalties, or procedural duties such as timeframes for decision-making; nor does it provide explicit obligations on other agencies beyond application of the Statement in claims under the specified sections (sections 3 and 5). It functions as a technical standard to be applied by the authorities operating under the VEA and MRCA.

Burden and evidentiary implications: The text implies, without specifying procedural detail, that claimants must produce medical evidence showing that one of the listed clinical conditions existed and was related to relevant service. Several factors will require contemporaneous or retrospective clinical documentation (for example, proof of periodontitis, radiotherapy fields, ribavirin treatment records, or records showing inability to obtain clinical management). The instrument does not set evidentiary rules, but the practical duty on claimants will be to establish those facts to meet the instrument’s minimum threshold.

Absence of penal provisions: The Statement of Principles contains no express penalties, fines, or criminal sanctions. The instrument’s terms are evidentiary and definitional rather than punitive. The Repatriation Medical Authority makes a medical-scientific determination of factors that raise a reasonable hypothesis for service connection; it does not, in this instrument, create or prescribe enforcement penalties (see sections 3, 8, 9).

Mechanism of enforcement or application: The instrument operates through its application to claims made under section 120A of the VEA and section 338 of the MRCA (section 5). Enforcement of the instrument’s standards therefore occurs within the administrative adjudication processes governed by those Acts and their procedures. The Statement’s role is to guide whether a reasonable hypothesis exists; subsequent administrative steps (acceptance, rejection, further investigation, referral to adjudication or review) would be governed by the procedural provisions of the VEA and MRCA, which are not reproduced in this instrument.

Authority and decision-maker: The Repatriation Medical Authority is the authorising body for the Statement (section 3). The RMA’s view, as recorded, is that there is sound medical-scientific evidence for the link between tooth loss and relevant service (section 8). That view is the medical basis on which administrative decision-makers will apply the instrument. The Statement does not itself create a new decision-maker or enforcement agency.

Implications for claim process and outcome: Because the Statement specifies the minimum clinical factors to raise a reasonable hypothesis, failure to meet those criteria will affect the administrative outcome of a claim handled under the VEA/MRCA regime. For example, if none of the section 9 factors is demonstrated, a decision-maker may find that a reasonable hypothesis is not raised and therefore that there is insufficient basis, under the relevant claim provisions, to proceed on a service-connection basis. Those practical consequences are an administrative enforcement mechanism, though not a statutory penalty.

Records and evidence: Enforcement of the Statement’s standards will rely on clinical and service records. Several factors (e.g. radiotherapy within four years, ribavirin use at clinical onset, inability to obtain appropriate clinical management) require temporal and documentary corroboration. Healthcare providers and record-keepers thus have an indirect enforcement role via the records they hold and provide. The Statement itself does not create record-keeping obligations beyond the need to apply its criteria.

No specified review or appeal mechanisms in this instrument: The Statement does not enumerate appeal, review, or reconsideration processes; those processes are situated in the VEA and MRCA statutory frameworks referenced by the instrument. Consequently, the practical enforcement and remedies for claimants who disagree with administrative application of this Statement will be those provided under the broader Acts.

Statutory basis and primary Acts: This Statement is made under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, as stated in the instrument (section 3). It is intended to be applied in the context of claims to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies (section 5). Therefore, its legal operation is as an evidentiary/medical standard within the administrative frameworks set by those Acts. The instrument does not amend the VEA or MRCA text itself; it operates under the power granted by the VEA.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles: Section 11 establishes an explicit interaction rule: where a section 9 factor “refers to an injury or disease in respect of which a Statement of Principles has been determined,” 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 creates a hierarchy by cross-reference: when a section 9 factor points to another condition already governed by a separate Statement, decision-makers must apply that separate instrument’s terms. This prevents duplication and requires cross‑checking other Statements of Principles to determine how the referenced condition is treated.

Clinical classification and ICD codes: The instrument references ICD‑10‑AM codes K08.1 and K08.3 as codes that tooth loss attracts, but it clarifies that for application of this Statement the statutory meaning is the definition in subsection 7(2) (sections 7(3)-(4)). It also identifies the specific edition and effective date of the ICD‑10‑AM in question (section 7(4)). That means decision‑makers may consult clinical classification systems but must apply the instrument’s textual definition where divergence might occur.

Definitions tie to other Acts: The Schedule defines “MRCA” and “VEA” and sets out the categories that constitute “relevant service” (Schedule). Those definitions are the point of intersection between this Statement and the substantive service categories established by the VEA and MRCA. Application of this Statement will therefore require translation of a claimant’s service history into one of the Schedule’s service categories to satisfy the requirement in section 10(1) that any factor be “related to the relevant service rendered by the person.”

Replacements and repeal: The instrument expressly repeals the previous Statement of Principles concerning loss of teeth No. 124 of 2015 (section 4). That repeal means this Statement replaces the 2015 instrument for claims that fall within its application. Administratively, decisions made after commencement will use the 2025 Statement in place of the 2015 instrument where applicable.

No express conflict‑resolution clause: The instrument does not contain a broader clause resolving conflicts between itself and other laws beyond the cross‑reference mechanism in section 11 and the statutory basis in section 3. It does not purport to modify substantive entitlements in the VEA or MRCA; its operation is confined to providing medical and causal standards to be applied by administrators under those Acts.

International or health regulation interaction: The only external technical reference is the ICD‑10‑AM classification (section 7(4)). There are no references to other health or safety laws, privacy, record-keeping, or Medicare arrangements. Any interaction with those regimes will therefore arise from administrative practice rather than from explicit provisions in this Statement.

Instrument identity and dates: This instrument is titled the Statement of Principles concerning tooth loss (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 29 of 2025) and is dated 18 February 2025 (front matter). It commences on 25 March 2025 (section 2). The Repatriation Medical Authority is recorded as the maker and Professor Terence Campbell AM is identified as Chairperson signing on behalf of the Authority (front matter).

Repeal of prior instrument: Section 4 expressly repeals the Statement of Principles concerning loss of teeth No. 124 of 2015 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2015L01678) made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA. That is the only explicit amendment action recorded in the text provided; the repeal means the 2015 Statement ceases to have effect from the commencement date of this instrument.

No internal amendment provisions: The instrument contains no internal mechanism for amendment or schedule of prospective changes. It is made under the RMA’s statutory power in subsection 196B(2) of the VEA. Any future amendments would need to be effected by the RMA exercising that same power and would create a new instrument or variation, as occurred here when the 2015 Statement was replaced.

Edition references for external material: Section 7(4) cites a particular edition of ICD‑10‑AM (Tenth Edition, effective date 1 July 2017, ISBN etc.). That citation fixes the edition of the external classification system that the instrument references. Future updates to ICD classifications would not automatically alter the statutory meaning provided by the instrument, because section 7(3) indicates the statutory meaning is the subsection definition rather than merely the ICD code.

No transitional provisions stated: The instrument contains no explicit transitional provisions dealing with claims lodged or decided between repeal of the 2015 Statement and commencement of this instrument. The practical effect of repeal and replacement will be governed by administrative practice and the VEA/MRCA frameworks; the instrument itself only states the repeal (section 4) and commencement (section 2).

Document provenance: The instrument is presented with formal elements (date, chairperson signature, authority citation). It is labelled as Statement No. 29 of 2025. There is no schedule of prior amendments to this instrument because this is the new instrument; only the prior instrument is repealed.

Implications for practitioners: Practitioners should note that the 2015 Statement has been replaced. For claims that will be decided after 25 March 2025 and that fall within the application provision (section 5), the 2025 Statement is the operative instrument. If a claim hinges upon differences between the 2015 and 2025 Statements, practitioners will need to identify how the factors differ; the instrument itself contains the operative factors and definitions for the 2025 regime.

No cases or litigation text included: The instrument as provided contains no references to judicial decisions, litigation history, or administrative tribunal determinations. It does not name any cases or cite precedents. The instrument records the Repatriation Medical Authority’s view that there is sound medical‑scientific evidence supporting a link between tooth loss and relevant service (section 8), but it does not cite judicial endorsement or litigation outcomes.

No recorded challenges or commentary: There is no text within this instrument recording that it has been the subject of legal challenge, review, or appeal. The document does not indicate any contested interpretation or prior litigation that informed the drafting.

Practical consequence for lawyers and adjudicators: Because the instrument contains no litigation history, practitioners must rely on the VEA and MRCA statutory frameworks and any relevant decisions elsewhere to understand how courts and tribunals treat Statements of Principles generally. Within the instrument itself, the only legal authority cited is the enabling provision in the VEA under which the RMA acted (subsection 196B(2) of the VEA) (section 3). Any litigation history relevant to the application of this Statement would therefore need to be sought in external sources , which are not included in the text of this instrument.

Monitoring for future cases: Given that Statements of Principles operate as medical‑scientific standards within administrative decision-making, future litigation may address issues such as the proper interpretation of terms used in the Statement (for example, “clinical onset”, “dental decision to extract”, “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management”, or the meaning of “related to” relevant service). None of that litigation, if it exists, is recorded in the instrument itself.

No precedent names provided: The instrument does not provide precedent names to be used by practitioners when arguing issues about tooth loss causation under the VEA or MRCA. Practitioners should therefore prepare to source case law separately, and to frame arguments closely around the textual terms of the instrument when litigating or advocating on claims that depend on this Statement.

Terms used but not defined: The instrument uses clinical and temporal terms that are not explicitly defined within its text. Examples include “clinical onset”, “dental decision to extract”, “material contribution”, “aggravation”, and “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” (sections 9 and 10). Because these appear without statutory definitions in the provided text, decision-makers and practitioners will need to rely on ordinary clinical meanings, contemporaneous records, and potentially external clinical expert evidence to fix their meanings in individual cases. That creates evidentiary and interpretive points of contention.

Minimum threshold is “at least one” factor: The instrument sets the minimum evidentiary threshold as the existence of at least one of the listed factors in section 9. That means a single clinical condition (for example, dental caries in the affected tooth at time of clinical onset (section 9(1))) is sufficient, on its own, to raise a reasonable hypothesis, provided it is related to relevant service (section 10(1)). Practitioners should note that cumulative evidence is not required by the text, but relation to service is. This creates strategic choices about which factor(s) to pursue in evidence gathering.

Radiotherapy timing limitation: The radiotherapy factor operates only where the claimant underwent a course of radiotherapy for head or neck cancer, and the affected tooth was in the field of radiation, within the four years before clinical onset (section 9(9)). The instrument includes a note explaining the clinical mechanism (osteonecrosis) but the four‑year window is a hard temporal limitation in the text. Precise dating of radiotherapy and of clinical onset will therefore be decisive for that factor.

Special handling of inability to obtain care: The “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” factor (section 9(12)) is limited by section 10(2) to situations where the tooth loss was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service, and then only where that inability materially contributed to or aggravated the tooth loss. That nuance may catch claimants who seek to rely on lack of access to care where tooth loss arose out of service or where the timing falls outside the specified window. Practitioners should be careful to map chronology and causation precisely.

Inclusion of surgical extraction, exclusion of superficial enamel wear: The definition of tooth loss expressly includes surgical extraction (section 7(2)(b)) and excludes superficial tooth wear confined to enamel (section 7(2)(c)). Where a claimant’s records show extraction, this is within scope; where the issue is non‑extraction enamel wear, it is excluded. That exclusion can be outcome determinative and requires careful review of dental records.

Death scope tied to “contributed to by” tooth loss: For death claims, the instrument covers death only where a terminal event or condition was contributed to by the person’s tooth loss (section 7(5)). The Schedule lists examples of terminal events (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function). Establishing that tooth loss contributed to such a terminal event will often require bridging clinical evidence (for example, aspiration pneumonia linked to poor dentition), which is not trivial to marshal.

Cross‑reference to other Statements can shift standards: Section 11 mandates application of other Statements of Principles when a section 9 factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another Statement. Practically, that can transfer the evidentiary requirements and interpretive terms of another Statement into the assessment of a tooth-loss claim. Claimants and decision‑makers must identify and apply those other Statements where relevant.

ICD‑10‑AM codes are referenced but not determinative: While the instrument notes that tooth loss attracts ICD‑10‑AM codes K08.1 or K08.3 (section 7(3)), it clarifies that the statutory meaning is the subsection definition (section 7(3)). Reliance on coding alone without demonstrating the subsection’s clinical conditions will not suffice under the text of the Statement.

Replaced prior instrument: The 2015 Statement has been repealed (section 4). Differences between the 2015 and 2025 texts may affect past practice, and claimants or advisers should not assume continuity of factors or wording without direct comparison.

No express procedural guidance: The Statement sets medical criteria but contains no procedural guidance on how claims are to be processed, what weight to give conflicting expert evidence, or how to treat missing records. Those procedural aspects will be determined by the VEA/MRCA frameworks and administrative practice rather than by this instrument.

For claimants and advisers: Evidence map to the factors listed in section 9. The Statement makes clear that at least one of the enumerated factors must exist and be related to relevant service (sections 9 and 10(1)). Practical compliance therefore requires assembling clinical and service evidence that tends directly to one or more of these factors, and then showing how that factor is related to the person’s relevant service as the Schedule defines it.

Key categories of evidence to obtain and present

• Dental clinical records showing dental caries, periodontitis, periodontal abscess, dental pulp and apical disease, or pericoronitis, and the timing of those diagnoses relative to the “clinical onset” or the “dental decision to extract” (sections 9(1)-(4) and 9(10)). The instrument, while not defining “clinical onset” or “dental decision to extract,” anchors causation to those clinical events.
• Dental imaging and operative notes documenting fracture of the tooth involving dentine, luxation, traumatic avulsion, or fracture of the alveolar bone (sections 9(5)-(8)).
• Oncology records and radiotherapy planning fields showing radiotherapy for head or neck cancer, and documentary proof that the affected tooth was within the radiation field and that such radiotherapy occurred within four years before clinical onset (section 9(9)). The instrument notes osteonecrosis as the plausible clinical pathway.
• Pharmacy and treatment records showing ribavirin use at the time of clinical onset if this is alleged (section 9(11)).
• Service records, deployment records, and other documentation that establish the claimant’s “relevant service” category as set out in the Schedule (operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence service under VEA; warlike or non‑warlike under MRCA) so the clinical factors can be linked to service (section 10 and Schedule, relevant service).
• Records showing attempts to access care and barriers encountered where reliance is placed on the “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” factor (section 9(12)); where this factor is used, ensure chronology shows the tooth loss was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service because section 10(2) limits the factor’s application.
• Death certificates, medical cause of death documentation, and post‑mortem reports where the claim involves death from tooth loss, together with expert opinion linking tooth loss to the terminal event or condition (section 7(5) and Schedule, terminal event list).

For medical experts and treating clinicians: Prepare focussed, time‑anchored opinions that map observed clinical conditions onto the specific language used in the Statement. For example, when opining on whether “periodontitis in the periodontium supporting the affected tooth at the time of clinical onset” existed, state the clinical findings, dates, and how they meet the Statement’s language (section 9(2)). If relying on radiotherapy, specify the radiation field and dates (section 9(9)). Because terms such as “clinical onset” are not defined, experts should state how they interpret those terms in the clinical context and clearly document dates.

For decision‑makers and administrators: Apply the textual test in this Statement strictly. First, determine whether the claimant’s condition fits the subsection definition of “tooth loss” (section 7(2)). Second, ascertain whether at least one of the section 9 factors is established on the evidence. Third, determine whether that factor is “related to” the claimant’s relevant service as defined in the Schedule (section 10(1)). Where a section 9 factor refers to an injury or disease already covered by another Statement, consult and apply that other Statement’s terms (section 11).

Record and prove chronology: Several factors hinge on timing (for example, radiotherapy within four years; “at the time of clinical onset”; “at the time of the dental decision to extract”; inability to obtain care that materially contributed to aggravation where the tooth loss pre‑dates or occurs during service). Accurate dates and contemporaneous records will therefore be decisive. Practitioners should ensure chronology is explicit and supported by records.

Cross‑check excluded conditions: If the issue is enamel wear confined to the enamel, the definition excludes that presentation (section 7(2)(c)); do not conflate superficial wear with the instrument’s tooth loss definition. If the condition sits at the margin (e.g. retained root without crown), evidentiary clarity on whether the criterion of loss of enamel and dentine of the permanent tooth is met will be necessary.

When a factor refers to another Statement: Identify any linked Statements of Principles mentioned in section 11 and apply those Statements’ terms. That may require independent retrieval of other Statements and synthesis of their requirements with this instrument.

Practical submission structure for claims: Frame medical evidence explicitly against the numbered factors in section 9, state which factor(s) are relied upon, present service records establishing relevant service under the Schedule, and provide an expert nexus opinion linking the selected factor to service or, for death claims, linking tooth loss to the terminal event. Where records are incomplete, document diligent attempts to obtain records and provide contemporaneous evidence supporting factual assertions.

Timing of application: This Statement commences on 25 March 2025 (section 2) and replaces the 2015 Statement (section 4). For claims to which sections 120A or 338 apply and that will be decided after commencement, use this Statement as the operative instrument.

Administrative follow‑up: Be prepared to identify and supply other Statements referenced by section 11 and to seek clarifying evidence on undefined terms when required by adjudicators.