Parents win Mindef lawsuit
Ex-NSF ruled to be on duty when he was injured; family can claim disability benefits By Selina Lum
THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after he was injured in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry (Mindef).
The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Mr Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef.
The next step, presuming Mindef does not appeal, is to assess the degree of Mr Tan's disability and, using Manpower Ministry guidelines, work out how much he should get.
On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at the Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of the building where his bunk was located on the third level.
His head injuries were consistent with a fall from height, but findings by SAF investigators as to how he came to be hurt were inconclusive. Mindef classified his injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his hospital treatment from March 2007.
His parents' case thus turned on whether those injuries were sustained in the course of duty.
Although Mindef's lawyers argued against this, Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of the four-day hearing that his injuries were 'attributable to service', making him eligible for a payout.
The SAF (Pensions) Regulations state that a member of the SAF - a regular, a full-time NSman, an operationally ready NSman or volunteer - has the right to a payout for disabilities resulting from 'an injury received in and which is attributable to service'. The sticking point in this case was over the phrase 'attributable to service'.
Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that the young man was still on duty when he was found injured at 6pm.
But state counsel Shawn Ho, for Mindef, argued that Mr Tan was not doing anything related to his duty; he was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting on his bunk.
So although Mr Tan was injured while performing national service, the injuries were not caused by his duties, said Mr Ho. He urged the court not to interpret the phrase too broadly or it would open the floodgates to claims for all injuries and raise payouts to an unacceptable level.
Mr Ho also argued that Mr Tan could have attempted suicide, as his campmates said that before the incident, he had sent 'weird' text messages and looked preoccupied.
But Justice Tay ruled that the phrase should be read broadly, because the regulations are meant to provide benefits for injured servicemen and their families.
He noted that although Mr Tan was not at his place of duty, he was on a 24-hour tour of duty and had given no sign that he was to book out of camp.
Justice Tay ruled that the phrase 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby and not doing any work in particular, even if evidence as to who or what caused the injury is lacking. He found no evidence of foul play or suicide or negligence on Mr Tan's part.
The judge noted that Mindef has tried its best to help the Tan family and that the dispute was over legal interpretation, 'not because Mindef was heartless'. Mindef was ordered to pay legal costs of $33,000. The ministry has 30 days to file an appeal.
[email protected]
Ex-NSF ruled to be on duty when he was injured; family can claim disability benefits By Selina Lum
THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after he was injured in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry (Mindef).
The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Mr Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef.
The next step, presuming Mindef does not appeal, is to assess the degree of Mr Tan's disability and, using Manpower Ministry guidelines, work out how much he should get.
On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at the Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of the building where his bunk was located on the third level.
His head injuries were consistent with a fall from height, but findings by SAF investigators as to how he came to be hurt were inconclusive. Mindef classified his injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his hospital treatment from March 2007.
His parents' case thus turned on whether those injuries were sustained in the course of duty.
Although Mindef's lawyers argued against this, Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of the four-day hearing that his injuries were 'attributable to service', making him eligible for a payout.
The SAF (Pensions) Regulations state that a member of the SAF - a regular, a full-time NSman, an operationally ready NSman or volunteer - has the right to a payout for disabilities resulting from 'an injury received in and which is attributable to service'. The sticking point in this case was over the phrase 'attributable to service'.
Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that the young man was still on duty when he was found injured at 6pm.
But state counsel Shawn Ho, for Mindef, argued that Mr Tan was not doing anything related to his duty; he was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting on his bunk.
So although Mr Tan was injured while performing national service, the injuries were not caused by his duties, said Mr Ho. He urged the court not to interpret the phrase too broadly or it would open the floodgates to claims for all injuries and raise payouts to an unacceptable level.
Mr Ho also argued that Mr Tan could have attempted suicide, as his campmates said that before the incident, he had sent 'weird' text messages and looked preoccupied.
But Justice Tay ruled that the phrase should be read broadly, because the regulations are meant to provide benefits for injured servicemen and their families.
He noted that although Mr Tan was not at his place of duty, he was on a 24-hour tour of duty and had given no sign that he was to book out of camp.
Justice Tay ruled that the phrase 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby and not doing any work in particular, even if evidence as to who or what caused the injury is lacking. He found no evidence of foul play or suicide or negligence on Mr Tan's part.
The judge noted that Mindef has tried its best to help the Tan family and that the dispute was over legal interpretation, 'not because Mindef was heartless'. Mindef was ordered to pay legal costs of $33,000. The ministry has 30 days to file an appeal.
[email protected]
