Greville and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered whether the Applicant, who sought to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), met the relevant disability requirements. The Applicant had applied for review of a decision that confirmed an earlier decision that she did not meet the NDIS access criteria. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to review this decision under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant met the disability requirements as set out in section 24(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if the Applicant had a disability attributable to specific types of impairments, if those impairments were permanent, and if they resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake key activities such as communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, and self-management. The Tribunal also needed to consider if the impairments affected the Applicant's capacity for social or economic participation and if she was likely to require NDIS support for her lifetime.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the concept of "impairment" rather than a specific diagnosis or condition, as stipulated by section 24(1)(a). The Tribunal noted that "disability" in this context refers to the overall effect of impairments on a person's abilities to participate in life. The Applicant claimed impairments attributable to bipolar 1 disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, and depression, which she characterised as a loss of mental function affecting her ability to regulate mood, emotions, inhibitions, behaviours, and concentration, particularly during acute episodes or panic attacks. The Tribunal acknowledged that impairments which vary in intensity or are episodic or fluctuating may still be considered permanent for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal set aside the previous decision and substituted its own. The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the disability requirements under section 24(1) of the Act.