Harrison and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, who suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and severe hypertension, to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The Applicant sought to rely on symptoms such as pain, stiffness, abnormal gait, and limited mobility to demonstrate that their impairments met the NDIS access criteria. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) contended that the Applicant had not demonstrated a substantially reduced functional capacity in the specified areas. The decision was made by Senior Member D Connolly.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake any of the six specified activities (communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, or self-management), and if so, whether the Applicant was likely to require NDIS support for their lifetime. The parties agreed that the Applicant had a permanent disability, thus satisfying paragraphs 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). The dispute centred on paragraph 24(1)(c) concerning functional capacity and paragraph 24(1)(e) regarding the likelihood of lifelong support needs.

The Tribunal applied the principles that NDIS Operational Guidelines should be followed unless there is good reason not to, and that the assessment of functional capacity must be precise, functional, and multifaceted, as explained by Mortimer J and the Full Federal Court. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including submissions from Dr Epstein regarding the Applicant's reduced functional capacity in mobility, socialising, learning, and self-care. Having reviewed the material, the Tribunal found that the Applicant met the disability requirements under the Act, including paragraph 24(1)(c) and paragraph 24(1)(d) (which the parties agreed was met due to the impairment affecting economic participation). Consequently, the Tribunal determined it was not necessary to consider the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act.