Grant and National Disability Insurance Agency

The applicant, Ms Grant, sought to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) based on impairments arising from osteoarthritis, cervical spondylosis, lumbar spondylosis, and cervical spine disc degeneration. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had affirmed its decision that Ms Grant did not meet the access criteria. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Ms Grant had a disability attributable to a physical impairment that was permanent and resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in one or more specified domains, or alternatively, whether she met the early intervention requirements for access.

The Tribunal considered whether Ms Grant's impairments were permanent, applying the principles from *National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis*, which defines "permanent impairment" as having an "enduring quality" and "remedy" as approaching removal or cure. While the Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Grant's cervical and lumbar spondylosis impairments were permanent, it found that her hand osteoarthritis was not permanent as treatment options had not been fully explored. The Tribunal then assessed whether Ms Grant's impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in the domains of communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, and self-management.

Applying the NDIS Operational Guidelines and relevant case law, the Tribunal found that Ms Grant did not demonstrate a substantially reduced functional capacity in any of the specified domains. Although she experienced pain, fatigue, and limitations in mobility and some daily tasks, these did not meet the threshold for a "substantially reduced functional capacity" as defined by the Act and guidelines, which typically requires a need for disability-specific supports. The Tribunal also considered the early intervention requirements, noting that Ms Grant's treating doctor had indicated that early intervention supports would not likely reduce her future support needs, and concluded that further assessment would not significantly impact her functional capacity.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision, finding that Ms Grant did not meet the disability requirements under section 24 of the NDIS Act, nor the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act, and therefore was not eligible to access the NDIS.