Policy

For declared diseases a connection is assumed, where the relevant requirements are met. Note there still needs to be evidence that the claimant's employment in the ADF involved exposure to the particular substance etc listed and they have met the relevant employment period – once this is demonstrated the disease should be accepted under the Act, unless there is evidence to prove to the contrary.

The table of current declared diseases is at Appendix 2.

RCG policy is that the principles of natural justice require that the client be afforded, on request, an informal internal review of whether or not he/she had 'reasonable excuse' for non-attendance. This offer is extended to the client in the standard letter referred to, above.

Where a base includes residential barracks, in some cases the barracks will be both the 'place of work' and also the 'place of residence' of that member.

Delegates should read the whole report and not merely the summary of conclusions. Delegates should understand the reasoning implicit in the specialist medical report. Where there is an apparent internal contradiction, faulty logic or circular reasoning within the report, the Delegate should ask for a clarification. Alternatively, where this appears to the Delegate not to be an isolated instance but so fundamental as to invalidate the recommendations, the Delegate should set that report aside and commission a report from another specialist.

For this provision to apply, the misconduct of the member must:

• be serious, and
• be wilful, and
• cause the injury.

In assessing whether misconduct is 'serious', consideration must be given to the level of risk involved, the potential seriousness of the consequences and the deliberate intention of the member to engage in the conduct.

Note: It is the misconduct which must be 'serious', not the injury which has resulted (Comcare v Calipari (2001)).

Section 61 of the SRCA requires a determination to be 'served' (i.e. dispatched to the client) 'as soon as practicable' after the decision is made.

In fact, in the RCG context, there is no reason why the date of Determination can not also be the date that Determination is dispatched to the client.

Where an employee asserts that the determination of the original claim must be revisited due to the advent of new evidence (i.e. evidence not previously presented), the Delegate may exercise discretion to re-examine the matter. In that case however, it is not a new claim and should be handled as a review of the original decision. It is not necessary for the employee to submit a new claim form nor is it desirable to register this review as a new case.

• All operational flying related to the Mosaic tests was an RAF, not RAAF responsibility.  RAF Canberra aircraft were flown from RAAF Pearce, and were flown to Amberley for decontamination (7.0.12).  RAF Varsities and helicopters carried out ground decontamination surveys, and RAF Canberras and Varsities tracked the clouds (7.0.12).
• RAAF air support consisted of transportation, signals, security patrols, and search and rescue and air traffic control. (7.0.12)

On receipt of a claim relating to a pre-1993 injury, RCG locations should: