Ofori and Comcare (Compensation)

Ms Ofori sought compensation from Comcare for a condition affecting her left foot, which she claimed arose between 11 and 14 May 2016. The matter came before Member Mark Hyman of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Comcare contended that Ms Ofori's claim was excluded under section 7(7) of the relevant Act, arguing she had wilfully and falsely represented that she had not previously suffered from the same condition. Alternatively, Comcare argued that Ms Ofori's foot condition was a generalised inflammation caused by her obesity, and that her employment had not significantly contributed to its onset.

The Tribunal was required to determine the diagnosis of Ms Ofori's 2016 foot condition and whether it was indistinguishable from a previous foot condition she had experienced in 2013 and 2014. It also needed to consider whether Ms Ofori's employment had made a significant contribution to the arising of her condition, particularly in light of her pre-existing obesity.

Member Hyman noted that while Ms Ofori had suffered from foot pain in 2013 and 2014, with diagnoses including plantar fasciitis, the evidence did not provide an unambiguous diagnosis for either the earlier or the 2016 condition. The 2016 condition was described by medical professionals with various terms, including plantar fasciosis and different forms of tendonitis, such as tibialis posterior tendinitis and abductor hallucis tendonitis. Ms Ofori herself reported that the new pain felt different and was located differently from her previous condition. The Tribunal found that the diagnosis of the 2016 condition was not the same as the earlier condition, and therefore the exclusion under section 7(7) did not apply. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the significant contribution test, but the decision focused on the exclusion under section 7(7).