Daniels and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for review by an applicant seeking access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The applicant sought to rely on a range of impairments, including Scheuermann’s disease, degenerative disc disease, radiculopathy, osteoarthritis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and depression. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had refused the applicant’s access, and the applicant sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for access to the NDIS under section 24 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth), which involves satisfying requirements relating to the nature of the impairment, its permanence, and the resulting functional capacity. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant had a disability attributable to one or more physical or psychosocial impairments, whether these impairments were permanent or likely to be permanent, and whether they resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity. If the disability requirements were not met, the Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant met the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a range of physical and psychosocial impairments, including those arising from Scheuermann’s disease, osteoarthritis, COPD, depression, and anxiety, there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the permanence requirement under section 24(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that for an impairment to be considered permanent, there must be no known, available, and appropriate evidence-based treatments that would be likely to remedy it. In this case, the Tribunal identified several available and appropriate treatments for the applicant's pain management and psychosocial conditions that had not been fully explored or engaged with, including specialist pain management programs and psychological therapies. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's impairments were permanent. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act, as the impairments were not demonstrated to be permanent, and there was insufficient evidence that early intervention supports would significantly mitigate or alleviate the impact of her impairments.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the disability requirements under section 24 or the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth) to access the NDIS.