Issue 13: Hansen v Comcare and AI evidence handling

What shipped

1. 1

   ART hands down Hansen v Comcare 2026 ART 412 on AI-assisted reasoning

   The Administrative Review Tribunal published Hansen v Comcare 2026 ART 412, addressing the evidentiary status of AI-assisted reasoning attached to a determination under the SRC Act.

   Source →
2. 2

   Comcare publishes April 2026 AI tooling guidance

   Comcare released expectations for AI used by licensed authorities in claims operations, calling for transparency, human oversight, and audit trails for any AI involved in determinations.

   Source →
3. 3

   Federal Court practice note on AI-drafted submissions takes effect

   The Federal Court's new practice note expects parties to disclose where generative AI assisted document preparation and to verify all citations before filing in administrative matters.

   Source →

Four actions WC case managers can take this week.

This week is Workers Compensation again, on the back of the new ART decision in Hansen. The four actions assume you operate inside a Comcare-licensed authority and influence determinations under the SRC Act. Each is achievable in a working week and produces an artefact for your file.

• One. Read the Hansen reasons end to end before relying on any summary, including this one. Twenty-five minutes. Note the verification steps the Tribunal cited.
• Two. Audit one closed determination from the past quarter. Did the file capture how the supporting documents were prepared, and is the audit trail consistent with what Hansen expects?
• Three. Update your team's de-identification quick reference. Hansen reinforces that any input pasted into a tool must be de-identified before use. Remove names, claim numbers, dates of birth, employer specifics, and treating practitioner identifiers.
• Four. Brief your delegate on Hansen in five minutes. Two paragraphs. The decision and one practical change you propose for your section. Document the conversation in the team minute.

Each action turns the Hansen decision from background reading into a file artefact. They produce evidence Comcare and the ART would expect to see if a similar matter came back through review.

What Hansen v Comcare ART 412 actually changed for case managers.

Visual 1. Indicative procedural elements the Tribunal cited as part of an adequate verification trail. Source: Hansen v Comcare 2026 ART 412. Indicative summary only, refer to the published reasons.

Prompt of the month

Prompt of the week.

Setup: This prompt produces a Hansen-aligned verification record for a determination where AI was used to summarise treating practitioner reports. Paste a de-identified case scenario. The model returns a verification record, a list of items the delegate must personally check, and a one-paragraph file note.

You are a workers compensation policy assistant working with a Comcare-licensed authority under the SRC Act 1988. You support a delegate making a determination on incapacity or liability where AI was used to summarise treating practitioner reports.

Inputs I will provide:
- Determination type (liability, incapacity, calculation, rehabilitation).
- Tool used for the summary and the type of material it processed.
- Confirmation that the inputs were de-identified before the tool saw them, including removal of names, claim numbers, dates of birth, employer specifics, and treating practitioner identifiers.
- Any draft summary text the tool produced.
- Reference points from Hansen v Comcare 2026 ART 412 the user wants reflected.

Produce:
1. A verification record listing each step the delegate should document, aligned to the procedural points the Tribunal cited in Hansen.
2. A list of items the delegate must personally verify before relying on the AI-assisted summary, with a short reason for each.
3. A one-paragraph file note suitable for inclusion in the determination file, no longer than 100 words, factual and neutral in tone.

Do not invent procedural points the Tribunal did not make. Where evidence is insufficient, state what additional information the delegate would need. Treat any claimant identifier as a sign that the input was not properly de-identified and stop.

How to use it: Run it once with a de-identified scenario. Confirm de-identification before pasting. Compare the verification record against your authority's existing checklist. Save the file note as part of the determination file.

Risk: Models can mis-state procedural points if their training data does not include the specific reasons. Always read Hansen yourself before using the prompt's output to defend a process change. The prompt has been tested against a de-identified incapacity scenario and produced a workable verification record that needed editing for tone and for one terminology choice.

One monthly edition. Four sections. ~1,200 words. Free.