---
title: "Record what a Queensland insurer's decision file actually shows"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/assess-claims-involving-insurer-ai-decision-tools/queensland"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A21-B8-3-QLD"
practice_area: "Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["QLD"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-25"
---

# Record what a Queensland insurer's decision file actually shows

> From the insurer's letter and the file notes the lawyer supplies, table the decision, the date it was received, whether written reasons were requested, and whether the decision is one the review page treats as…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/assess-claims-involving-insurer-ai-decision-tools/queensland  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-25

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the insurer's letter and the file notes the lawyer supplies, table the decision, the date it was received, whether written reasons were requested, and whether the decision is one the review page treats as reviewable. Copy only what the documents say. Do not infer that an algorithm made the decision. |
| What the lawyer must review | Decide whether the decision is reviewable under s 540, or only a complaint. A decision not to fund a particular procedure is not reviewable on the page opened. Count 20 business days for reasons and 3 months for a review from the dates received. Use a firm-controlled tool. Check ASCR r 9, APP 11 and any notifiable breach. |
| Written for | Queensland |
| Applies to | [Assess claims involving insurer AI decision tools](https://ailawframework.com/practice/personal-injury-and-compensation/assess-claims-involving-insurer-ai-decision-tools.md) |

## Checking plan

**Verify against sources**

The tool records the decision the file shows. The lawyer decides if it can be reviewed.

- What the AI does: From the insurer's letter and the file notes the lawyer supplies, table the decision, the date it was received, whether written reasons were requested, and whether the decision is one the review page treats as reviewable. Copy only what the documents say. Do not infer that an algorithm made the decision.
- What the lawyer does: Make the legal assessment, check the source material and authorise the output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in this practice area
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 23 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Record the decision type and the date the worker was advised, separately from the date the written decision was received.
2. Do not describe a tool, score or model unless the document names it.
3. Check the review page's examples of decisions that are and are not reviewable.
4. Do not draft the review application.

## Notes

- Health, wage and benefit records stay in a firm-controlled tool. Check ASCR r 9, APP 11, and whether a disclosure is notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- No Queensland statute on insurer automated decision-making was opened. The review path is the one stated by WorkSafe: ask the insurer for a reasons-for-decision document within 20 business days of being advised of the decision, then lodge a review with the Office of Industrial Relations within 3 months of receiving the insurer's written decision. The review officer does not re-investigate the claim.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: WorkCover Queensland or a self-insurer, then the Workers' Compensation Regulator

**Deliverable**: A decision table limited to what the file states, with the review dates calculated from dates the lawyer confirms.

**Inputs**

- Insurer's written decision
- File notes of any phone call or portal message
- Date the worker was advised
- Date the written decision was received

**Example**: Illustrative example: The letter rejects the application and gives no score or model. The table records the rejection and the two dates. It does not say a program made the decision.

**Stop and escalate when**

- The only basis for an algorithm is a guess.
- The decision is about ongoing medical management or funding one procedure, which the page says is not a review.

Checked 2026-10-23.

## Sources

- [WorkSafe Queensland: independent review of insurer decisions](https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/workers-compensation/independent-review-of-insurer-decisions) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [WorkSafe Queensland: guide to appealing a review decision](https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/workers-compensation/appealing-a-review-decision/guide-to-appealing-a-review-decision) (checked 2026-10-23)
- [Queensland Industrial Relations Commission: workers' compensation](https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/workers-compensation) (checked 2026-10-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*