Green and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) by Mr Green, who had been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and bipolar affective disorder. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had refused access, and Mr Green sought review of this decision. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Green met the criteria for NDIS access, specifically whether his impairments were permanent and resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in at least one of the specified domains, or whether he met the early intervention requirements.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence regarding Mr Green's COPD and bipolar affective disorder. While acknowledging that both conditions were permanent impairments, the central issue was whether these impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in any of the NDIS access domains: communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, or self-management. The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency*, which clarified that the assessment focuses on what a person can and cannot do, rather than what they actually do, and requires a positive satisfaction that the statutory requirements are met.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while Mr Green experienced breathlessness affecting his mobility and some self-care tasks due to COPD, and some mild functional impairments related to social interaction and self-management from his bipolar affective disorder, these did not reach the threshold of a "substantially reduced functional capacity" as defined by the NDIS Act and relevant case law. For instance, despite limitations in walking distance and stamina, Mr Green could still mobilise independently around his home and for short distances in the community without aids. Similarly, his self-care and self-management difficulties, while present, were not considered severe enough to meet the NDIS criteria. The Tribunal also found that Mr Green did not meet the early intervention requirements, as there was no evidence that such supports would reduce his future need for assistance.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Green did not meet any of the requirements for access to the NDIS. The decision under review, which affirmed the NDIA's refusal of access, was therefore affirmed.