Permanence of condition and kidney transplants - GXYZ and NDIA [2020] AATA 3907

-

Summary

  • In GXYZ and NDIA [2020] AATA 3907 [opens in new window] the AAT found that a kidney transplant did not constitute a treatment that was likely to remedy nephropathy, in circumstances where the nephropathy was likely to recur after transplant. 
  • The balance of the case considers the access requirement of a substantial reduced functional capacity to undertake one of the activities listed in s 24 of the NDIS Act [opens in new window], which the Tribunal found GXYZ did not meet.

Facts

GXYZ is a 46 year-old who suffers from a number of conditions, including type-2 diabetes, depression and anxiety, and IgA nephropathy, which is a condition that affects the kidneys. He applied for the NDIS, but the NDIA determined that he did not meet the access criteria in s 21 of the NDIS Act [opens in new window]. He sought review of the NDIA's decision in the AAT.

At the tribunal hearing, GXYZ put forward evidence from a number of treating doctors, including Dr E, who stated that GXYZ was on the waitlist for a kidney transplant, and that he was likely to wait for between 2 and 4 years for the transplant. Dr E gave evidence that IgA nephropathy almost always recurs in the transplant kidney. 

GXYZ also put forward medical evidence concerning his diabetes and mental health conditions.

In relation to the IgA nephropathy, the NDIA argued that once the transplant took place, GXYZ would not suffer the effects of the impairment caused by the nephropathy, and therefore the condition was not permanent for the purposes of s 24(1)(b) of the NDIS Act [opens in new window]. 

Decision

The Tribunal member observed that in order to access the NDIS, a person has to met each of the access criteria in s 21 of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal accepted that each of GXYZ's conditions were a 'disability' for the purposes of s 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act [opens in new window], because they were impairments to his mental and physical function.

The Tribunal found that the evidence indicated that the nephropathy would likely return after the transplant took place. Although there was a significant degree of uncertainty about the extent to which GXYZ would benefit from a kidney transplant, the Tribunal found that the condition was permanent, notwithstanding that the impairment may vary in intensity and the severity of its impact on the functional capacity of GXYZ may fluctuate: see [92] of the decision.

The Tribunal also found that GXYZ's major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder were also permanent conditions.

The Tribunal next considered whether the impairments resulted in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self management. The Tribunal observed that although he claimed to be unable to participate fully in daily activities that normal people do, his evidence about his capacity "lacked consistency": see [104] of the decision.

In particular, the Tribunal found that GXYZ worked part time, volunteered for 1-2 hours per week, attended wellness centres prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, and completed a university degree in humanities (on a slightly reduced course load), despite his impairments. He could also engage in self-care activities, such as cooking (although they left him fatigued). The Tribunal found that his ability to do these things was inconsistent with a significant functional incapacity to undertake activities in any of the domains in s 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act [opens in new window]. Therefore, GXYZ did not meet the criterion in s 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act, and thus did not meet the access criteria in s 21 of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision.

Analysis

It is interesting to see that the Tribunal took a nuanced approach to the question of whether the potential for a kidney transplant meant that GXYZ's nephropathy was a permanent condition. The Tribunal was persuaded by the fact that the underlying condition would remain after a kidney transplant, and any improvement that he would receive after the transplant could be construed as a fluctuation in the severity in the impact of the impairment, which did not affect its permanence. Although each case depends on its facts, this suggests that the availability of a transplant might not necessarily result in a remedy for the impairment for the purposes of the NDIA Act. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multiple Sclerosis and funding for air conditioning - McKenzie and NDIA

-
Key Points In McKenzie and NDIA [2019] AATA 3275  [opens in new window] the Tribunal determined that replacement of a home air conditioning system was a reasonable and necessary support for a person whose multiple sclerosis ( MS ) worsened in high temperatures or when the temperature changed. This is a useful decision because it emphasises that social and economic participation for the purposes of s 34 of the NDIS Act can still take place even in one's own home.  The decision also emphasises that whether something represents day-to-day spending that the NDIS will not cover, or a disability support that the NDIS will cover depends on the nature of the disability and its effects on the person. What is a discretionary item for a person without a disability may not be a discretionary item for a person with disability. Facts Mr McKenzie lives in far north Queensland. He has MS. The symptoms of his conditions worsen when his core body temperature rises and when h...
Read more

Permanence - NDIA v Davis [2022] FCA 1002

-
Key Points In NDIA v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 [opens in new window], the Federal Court has interpreted the NDIS Rules in a way that requires the NDIA and the Tribunal to take into account, among other things, a participant’s financial circumstances in determining whether a treatment is ‘available’. This is part of the NDIS Rules that deal with ‘permanence’. Facts Ms Davis suffers from a number of conditions, including spondylarthrosis, degenerative impingement of both shoulders, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, ulcerative colitis, obstructive sleep apnoea and morbid obesity. She applied to become a participant in the NDIA. The NDIA declined her application, finding that she did not meet the disability requirements under s 24 of the NDIS Act [opens in new window]. Ms Davis sought review of this decision in the Tribunal. On 14 January 2022, the Tribunal decided to set aside the NDIA’s decision and find that Ms Davis should be admitted as a participant: [2022] AATA 40 [opens in new...
Read more

Morbid obesity - is it an 'impairment' for the NDIS?

-
Note 14 November 2022:   The decision in Schwass v NDIA has likely been affected by the Federal Court's reasoning in NDIA v Davis  [2022] FCA 202 - please treat the decision in Schwass  carefully. The below blog article considers the law as it was understood in 2019. Key points There is a conflict between two Tribunal decisions about whether morbid obesity is an 'impairment' for the NDIS - 'impairment' is one of the access criteria for the NDIS. The conflict between the two decisions would have to be resolved by the Federal Court in an appropriate case. Even if a person with morbid obesity could prove it was an 'impairment', it will likely be difficult for them to prove that it was a 'permanent' impairment, because this would require them to show that there is no medical or other treatment available for it. Introduction The Tribunal has two different views on the question of whether morbid obesity is capable of being an 'impairment...
Read more