Isherwood and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) by Mr Isherwood. The dispute arose because the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) initially decided that Mr Isherwood did not meet the access criteria, specifically regarding substantially reduced functional capacity. While Mr Isherwood's initial application focused on liver failure and associated conditions, subsequent medical evidence revealed a neurocognitive disorder, likely alcohol-induced. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Isherwood met the NDIS access criteria, considering both his physical and neurocognitive impairments.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Isherwood's impairments were permanent or likely to be permanent, and whether these impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in the domains of communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, and self-management, as required by section 24 of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal also considered whether Mr Isherwood met the requirements for access under the early intervention pathway. A procedural matter arose concerning the shift in focus of the application from liver disease to neurocognitive disorder during the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr Isherwood had a neurocognitive disorder, the evidence did not establish that this impairment, or his liver disease, resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in any of the relevant domains. Although medical evidence indicated a permanent neurocognitive disorder, the Tribunal found that the functional impairments in learning and self-management were mild and that Mr Isherwood could still participate in activities, albeit sometimes requiring more time or direction. The Tribunal also found that his liver disease had a significant reversible component and was not permanent. Furthermore, there was no evidence that early intervention treatments would benefit Mr Isherwood or that his conditions were most appropriately funded through the NDIS.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Isherwood did not meet any of the criteria for access to the NDIS, either through the disability or early intervention pathways. The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision that Mr Isherwood did not meet the requirements for access to the scheme.