Farman and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Ms Farman for review of a National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) decision regarding her NDIS plan. Ms Farman sought additional funding for a hardwired visual and vibrating alerting system (Visualert System) and a motion-activated security camera system. The NDIA had approved her NDIS plan but disputed the inclusion of these specific supports.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the proposed Visualert System and the Security Camera System met the criteria of "reasonable and necessary supports" as defined by section 34(1) of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). A related issue was whether the Visualert System represented "value for money," considering its cost relative to its benefits and alternative options. The Tribunal also considered whether funding should be provided for an alternative alerting system, the Bellman Visit System, as a substitute for the Visualert System.

The Tribunal considered evidence from both parties, including reports from occupational therapists. It noted that the evidence from the treating occupational therapist was found not to be impartial due to a conflict of interest, as the therapist was married to the sole shareholder of the distributor of the specific Visualert product. Consequently, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of an independent occupational therapist engaged by the NDIA. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the hardwired Visualert System met the "value for money" criterion. However, it found that additional funding to enhance Ms Farman's existing visual and vibrating alerting system would meet the "reasonable and necessary supports" criteria. The Tribunal also concluded that the motion-activated security camera system met the "reasonable and necessary supports" criteria.

The Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision under review and remitted the matter with directions. These directions included approving funding for enhancements to Ms Farman's current alerting system and for the motion-activated security camera system, while not approving the specific Visualert System as proposed due to concerns about value for money.