Is it time to limit the role of the judiciary in compensation matters?

The current use of expert medical opinion in both adversarial and inquisito rial legal matters has been criticised and a number of alternatives have be en suggested. These alternatives include pre-trial (non-adversarial) consen sus reports by panels of experts, College-appointed panels of experts, or e xpert assessors to sit with and advise the judge. A further model that dese rves consideration is that of the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA). Thi s has an established role in the compensation system for Australian Veteran s and specified Defence Force personnel, The RMA provides Statements of Pri nciples which state the causes, within the bounds of the Veterans' Entitlem ents Act, of a specified disease, injury or death on the basis of the avail able 'sound medical scientific evidence'. The RMA is an example of the uses of epidemiology in providing compensation -based social services. This model has emerged as one which has clear impli cations for other compensation environments as well as in other evidence-ba sed social policy decision making arenas. A description of the development and function of the RMA is outlined and th e essential features for its operation are detailed. Fundamentally, this mo del promotes consistency and equity by the use of impartial and evidence-ba sed decision making.