Compensation is payable only in respect to an actual injury suffered by the employee.
Note: 'Injury' as defined by S5A (previously S4) of the SRCA also encompasses 'disease' and 'aggravation' (see parts 10.2 [3] and 10.3 [4] of this handbook). This requires that the employee suffers a medically definable condition resulting from the ADF employment.
For instance, a Delegate may not accept liability to pay compensation for mere exposure to, for example, carcinogenic chemicals. Compensation may certainly be payable in respect to any actual cancer shown to have developed as a consequence of work related exposure to such chemicals, but it is not payable in respect of mere potential for a related cancer to emerge at a later date.
Furthermore, the describable medical condition must exceed the bounds of normal human functioning for it to be described as a 'physical or mental injury' or as an 'ailment' relevant to the Act. For instance in the case of Comcare v Mooi (1996) the employee was affected by work related stress but the medical evidence suggested that the stress merely produced in him reactions that were within the range of normal human responses to distressing events. The Federal Court rejected the suggestion that a compensable disease could exist where the employee 'was not mentally ill or mentally disturbed or suffering from any psychological disorder'. Such cases are, of course, rare.
Compensation is also payable under S15 of the SRCA for 'loss of or damage to property used by the employee'. Property, as defined in this context, has a very narrow meaning.
Section 4 of the SRCA says that property used by an employee:
...means an artificial limb or other artificial substitute, or a medical, surgical or other similar aid or appliance, used by the employee
Because of operational requirements, the ADF does not generally employ persons with disabilities requiring prosthetic replacement of limbs etc. Compensation claims for loss/damage to 'property' are therefore rare for RCG. However, claims are occasionally received for damage to prescription spectacles, which may be covered under S15.
The scheme of S15 is that the employee must have suffered an 'accident' but not have suffered a bodily injury, i.e. there was no injury because the 'property' was damaged in lieu of the employee's body.
Thus, to quote two actual cases:
Liability conceded under S15 entitles the claimant to the costs of repair or replacement of the 'property', but to no other payment or benefit under the Act.
Although S28 of the 1971 Act does not use the term 'property' it nevertheless relates to damage or loss to artificial limbs or other artificial substitutes, medical surgical or other similar aids or appliances in exactly the same terms as S15 of the SRCA. The provisions of S28 are in fact identical to those of the SRCA.
In contrast, the 1930 Act does not provide for compensation in relation to damage to 'property' i.e. prosthetic devices etc. Nor is it anticipated that RCG will receive any such claims.
Links
[1] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20362%23comment-form
[2] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20219%23comment-form
[3] https://clik.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-srca-manuals-and-resources-library/liability-handbook/ch-10-injury-disease-or-aggravation/102-changes-srca-injury-disease-definitions-onafter-13-april-2007
[4] https://clik.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-srca-manuals-and-resources-library/liability-handbook/ch-10-injury-disease-or-aggravation/103-injury
[5] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20523%23comment-form
[6] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20139%23comment-form