Boateng and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Boateng against a reconsideration determination by Comcare that revoked liability for her claimed conditions. The initial determination had accepted liability for Ms Boateng's psychological condition but made no mention of her Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Ms Boateng contested the omission of the physical condition from the initial determination, and her employer subsequently requested a reconsideration. The reconsideration determination revoked liability, focusing primarily on the psychological condition but also referencing physical conditions, including IBD.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine the scope of its jurisdiction on review, particularly when the initial claim, the initial determination, and the reconsideration determination varied in their description of the claimed injuries. The central question was whether the tribunal's jurisdiction extended to considering the physical condition (IBD) when it was not explicitly included in the initial determination, despite being part of the overall claim and later referenced in the reconsideration determination.

The tribunal applied principles established in case law, notably from *Abrahams and Comcare*, which advocate for a broad, generous, and practical interpretation of notices of injury under the relevant Act. This approach is consistent with the beneficial purposes of the legislation and acknowledges that claimants may not have legal or comprehensive medical advice when lodging claims. The tribunal noted that the purpose of notice is to enable Comcare to investigate and determine claims. Therefore, the powers of an original decision-maker, and by extension the tribunal on review, extend to considering informal notices or amplifications of a claim, provided these are in aid of understanding the originally asserted injury and not a fundamentally different claim requiring a separate decision. The tribunal considered that the inclusion of IBD in the reconsideration determination, following Ms Boateng's immediate contestation of its omission from the initial determination, meant that the physical condition was not an entirely new claim outside the scope of the review.