Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19
Wednesday 11 May 2016 @ 11.36 a.m. | Legal Research
The High Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia in the case of Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May [2016] HCA 19. The High Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that Mr May had suffered an “injury” under section 4(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
Background
Mr May joined the Royal Australian Air Force a fit and healthy man. During his employment with the RAAF, he was required to undergo a series of medical vaccinations. Mr May claimed that he suffered a series of adverse reactions to the vaccinations. He applied for compensation under s14 of the Act in respect of “low immunity, fatigue, illness, dizziness – immune system/whole body,” which he argued was a result of the vaccinations.
Litigation History
A delegate of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission denied his claim. The MRCC later reconsidered the assessment only to affirm it once again. Mr May then took the matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the Tribunal found that Mr May was “significantly disabled” by his condition which it described loosely as “vertigo.” However, the Tribunal concluded that Mr May had failed to establish his case: he had not demonstrated that he had suffered a physical injury amounting to a "sudden or identifiable physiological change" in the normal functioning of the body or its organs attributable to the vaccinations received while serving in the RAAF. The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mr May had not suffered an “an injury (other than a disease)” for the purpose of s4(1). The Tribunal also found that he had not suffered a “disease” for the purpose of the act either.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by Mr May, but the Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal. By grant of special leave, the MRCC appealed to the High Court.
High Court
The High Court unanimously agreed with the Tribunal’s finding and ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish the nature and incidents of any physiological or psychiatric change to satisfy s 4(1)’s definition of “injury”.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
