Home modifications - Elevator vs Stairclimber - Loadsman and NDIA [2021] AATA 1990

-

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 a power wheelchair. 

Ms Loadsman was opposed to a stairclimber (a device that carries a person and their wheelchair up and down stairs), because she would need a person's help in order to use it. She could use an elevator independently, at least until her MND progressed to a point where she would be no longer able to do so. Ms Loadsman also argued that the cost of a stairclimber was less cost-effective than an elevator, when the cost of a support person to operate the device was factored in.

Decision

The Tribunal refused to include an elevator in Ms Loadsman's plan. However, it did vary the NDIA's decision to include the cost of a stairclimber. 

The Tribunal observed that the cost of an elevator was a total of $105,682, while the cost of a stairclimber was only $22,450. Moreover, when Ms Loadsman was no longer able to use a stairclimber, it could be uninstalled and reused elsewhere, meaning that another NDIS participant who needed a stairclimber would eventually benefit. 

The Tribunal referred to the NDIS Act, as well as the NDIS Operational Guideline Including Specific Types of Supports in Plans - Home Modification [opens in new window]. That Guideline indicates that the NDIA generally does not fund the installation of elevators or inclinators. In deciding whether to fund an elevator or inclinator, the NDIA will consider, among other things, whether it represents value for money and whether there are alternatives, such as reorganisation of the home so that the second storey does not ned to be accessed, or alternative accommodation. 

The Tribunal observed at [99] of the decision that both occupational therapists who gave evidence in the matter had concluded that Ms Loadsman could use a lightweight powered wheelchair at home, which the stairclimber could safely lift. Ms Loadsman's plan also had funding for assistive technology that would allow her to use a heavier wheelchair outside of the home. 

At [104] of the decision, the Tribunal concluded that compared to a stairclimber, an elevator did not represent value for money, which is one of the requirements for supports found in s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act [opens in new window]. 

At [106] the Tribunal found that it would be reasonable for members of Ms Loadsman's family to operate the stairclimber, given that they had already been providing her with assistance in climbing the stairs.

At [109], the Tribunal had regard to the overall financial sustainability of the NDIS. It observed that three stairclimbers could be purchased for the cost of installing an elevator in Ms Loadsman's home. Given that over 75,000 NDIS participants have neurological impairments, installing elevators as a matter of course would not be financially sustainable.

At [111], the Tribunal rejected Ms Loadsman's arugment that care costs should be factored into the cost of the stairclimber. The Tribunal found that Ms Loadsman's NDIS plan contained funding for carers to provide her with support, which could take the form of operating the stairclimber, and it was also reasonable to expect that Ms Loadsman's family members would continue to provide her with support. 

Analysis

As with all cases in this area, the Tribunal's decision is very fact-specific. The fact that the Tribunal considered that a stairclimber was reasonable and necessary in Ms Loadsman's case does not mean that it would consider a stairclimber to be reasonable and necessary in someone else's case.

However, this case is a useful example of how the Tribunal approaches the question of value for money in the context of home modifications. Clearly, the NDIA will be reluctant to fund expensive capital improvements like elevators that can only be used by one participant, if there are options for cheaper equipment that can potentially be reused. 

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