Bradley and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Bradley, an accepted participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for a review of decisions made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Mr. Bradley, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder and multiple other diagnoses, sought funding for 107 additional supports across various categories, including mobility, eating, psychological and sensory needs, self-management, and support coordination. He also sought a review of his NDIS plan. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the requested supports were "reasonable and necessary" under section 34 of the NDIS Act and whether the NDIA should have conducted a review of Mr. Bradley's NDIS plan.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including Mr. Bradley's own statements and the NDIA's operational guidelines. The core of the Tribunal's reasoning focused on the "reasonable and necessary" criteria, which require supports to be beneficial to the participant and represent value for money. The Tribunal found that, based on the evidence available, it was not satisfied that all the requested supports met these criteria. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that Mr. Bradley had not consistently attended various therapies and consultations, and in some instances, had prioritised other supports over those he was now requesting.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's first decision under review, which had declined to fund a range of requested supports. In relation to the second application, which sought a review of the NDIA's decision not to review Mr. Bradley's plan, the Tribunal dismissed this application as it was considered frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance, given that the Tribunal had already conducted its own review of the underlying decisions.