Grasser and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) by the applicant, Ms Grasser, against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency. The applicant sought access on the basis of major depressive disorder, fibromyalgia, golfer’s elbow, and plantar fasciitis. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the disability requirements under section 24 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth), specifically concerning the permanency of her impairments.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the effects of the applicant's impairments were permanent, or likely to be permanent. This involved determining if there were known, available, and appropriate treatments likely to remedy the impairments, and whether further investigations were required to establish permanency. The court also considered the meaning of "available treatment" and "remedy" in the context of the NDIS Act, referencing *National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis*.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's major depressive disorder appeared to be a secondary or reactive response to her underlying physical conditions. While treatments for fibromyalgia, including medication, counselling, Tai Chi, physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, and weight management, were identified as known and evidence-based, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had fully engaged with these treatments or that they were unavailable to her. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the severity and permanency of the applicant's golfer's elbow and plantar fasciitis.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency not to grant the applicant access to the NDIS. This outcome was based on the finding that the applicant had not met the mandatory criterion of permanency, or likely permanency, of her impairments as required by section 24(1)(b) of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had completed all known, available, and appropriate treatments, nor that she had fully engaged with those undertaken, which would likely have eased the effects of her impairments.