NDIS - Cases and Commentary

Key points In Hollis and NDIA  [2021] AATA 2888 [opens in new window] the Tribunal analyses requirements in order to obtain NDIS funding for the registration and upkeep of a dog who the applicant claimed had been trained to by a psychiatric assistance dog.  The Tribunal's decision states that at a minimum, among other things, a psychiatric assistance dog will have to be trained to standards set by Assistance Dogs International. That requirement could have the effect of severely limiting access to funding for psychiatric assistance dogs in Australia, given the limited number of Australian organisations providing psychiatric assistance dogs that appear to meet this standard. Facts Mr Hollis has a number of psychiatric conditions, including complex PTSD, dyslexia, anxiety and chronic grief. He sought funding for various supports, including funding for registration and upkeep of his toy poodle, Pluto, who Mr Hollis stated was trained to provide him with emotional support and psychiatr

Key Points In Loadsman and NDIA   [2021] AATA 1990 [opens in new window], the Tribunal refused to include funding for installation of a home elevator in a participant's plan, instead providing funding for a stairclimber. The case is a useful example of how the Tribunal (and the NDIA) approach the question of home modifications. It is apparent that if there is a suitable cheaper alternative that can be reused, then this will likely be funded instead of permanent home improvements. Facts Ms Loadsman is a participant in the NDIA who suffers from motor neurone disease ( MND ). She lives with her family in a two-storey home. Ms Loadsman sought funding from the NDIA for the installation of an elevator in order to allow her to access the upper storey of her home. Ms Loadsman gave evidence that she was unable to climb the stairs because her legs did not function properly. She had previously been using an ankle foot orthosis and a walker to navigate her house, but had recently begun using

Key points In Steley and NDIA  [2021] AATA 2539 [opens in new window] the Tribunal has made clear that a person seeking an internal review of a decision by the NDIA only needs to request an internal review. The person does not need to identify a particular aspect of the decision that is wrong, or identify specific supports that were not included in the original plan, which the person considers should be.  However, providing detail, relevant information and submissions to the NDIA will allow it to better conduct an internal review, and make it more likely that the person will receive a better decision upon review. Facts Mr Steley has a prosthetic eye. The NDIA issued a statement of participant supports, and Mr Steley sought internal review of this. Mr Steley sought additional supports relating to his prosthetic eye and certain physiotherapy or exercise physiology sessions. The internal reviewer did not consider these additional supports. (There was a factual dispute between the parties