NDIS - Cases and Commentary

Key points In TMVJ and NDIA [2022] AATA 2053 [opens in new window] the Tribunal decided that a person did not meet the access criteria for the NDIS. That person had declined to attend appointments for examination by specialists that the NDIA had arranged, and had failed to attend referrals to specialists that his own GP had recommended. The Tribunal's decision highlights the risks associated with that course of conduct, in particular the risks that the Tribunal concludes that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a person meets the access criteria for the NDIS.  This case also provides useful consideration of the concept of permanence in determining whether someone meets the disability criteria for the NDIS. Facts The Applicant sought review of a decision of the NDIA that he did not meet the access criteria for the NDIS. In his application for access to the NDIA, he stated that he had myalgic encephalomyelitis (otherwise known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) and Multiple

Note: This decision concerns a decision made prior to 1 July 2022. The NDIS Act has been amended, and those amendments took effect on 1 July 2022. If you are concerned about a decision made after  1 July 2022, then this decision of the Tribunal may not apply to you. Key Points In Rogers and NDIA [2022] AATA 2809 [opens in new window], the Tribunal considered jurisdictional issues that arise when new NDIS plans come into effect while the original plan is being reviewed.  These jurisdictional issues have been resolved by changes to the NDIS Act that apply after 1 July 2022. However, if the relevant decision predates 1 July 2022, then the old version of the law will apply. This case might help understanding of the jurisdictional issues under the old version of the law. Facts The Applicant is a participant in the NDIS. His Statement of Participant Supports ( SoPS ) provided Specialist Disability Accommodation ( SDA ), but the Applicant wanted a different form of accommodation support to b