Iviglia and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr Iviglia (the applicant) seeking access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had refused the applicant's access. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the eligibility requirements for the NDIS, specifically concerning the nature and impact of his impairments.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's impairments, described as left-sided sciatica, lower back pain, and a left foot injury, met the "disability requirements" under section 24 of the NDIS Act. This involved assessing whether these impairments were permanent or likely to be permanent, and whether they resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in relation to core activities. The Tribunal also considered the "early intervention requirements" under section 25, noting that while some aspects were accepted by the NDIA, others were not.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency*, which clarified that the NDIS scheme focuses on the concept of impairment rather than a strict definition of disability. An impairment is generally understood as a loss or damage to a physical, sensory, or mental function. The assessment required is functional and practical, focusing on what a person can and cannot do, rather than making qualitative judgments about the severity of an impairment. The Tribunal found that the NDIA accepted the applicant had physical impairments from his foot injury and back pain, and impairments related to depression and anxiety for the purposes of section 24(1)(a).

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision to refuse the applicant's access to the NDIS.