JJGZ and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by JJGZ (the applicant) against the National Disability Insurance Agency (the respondent) regarding the provision of reasonable and necessary supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether naturopathy appointments and natural supplements constituted reasonable and necessary supports for the applicant, who has Zlotogora-Ogur Syndrome. The decision was made by Dr L Bygrave, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the requested supports of naturopathy and natural supplements were reasonable and necessary pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Act. This involved assessing whether the supports would assist the applicant to pursue their stated goals and whether they represented value for money. The Tribunal also considered the 'no disadvantage principle' in light of the applicant's previous funding for similar supports from another agency.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of probative evidence establishing a link between the applicant's Zlotogora-Ogur Syndrome and the proposed naturopathic treatments and supplements. While acknowledging the applicant's mother's belief in the benefits of these supports and the applicant's short-term goal to improve health and wellbeing, the Tribunal found no medical evidence from an appropriately qualified practitioner demonstrating that these therapies would assist in achieving that goal. Applying the principles from *McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency*, the Tribunal concluded that the supports did not meet the criteria of being reasonable and necessary under section 34(1)(f) of the Act, as they did not represent value for money or demonstrably relate to the applicant's disability-related needs.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that funding for naturopathy and natural supplements were not reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS. The Tribunal also found that, despite submissions regarding previous funding and the 'no disadvantage principle', there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant had been disadvantaged in their transition to the NDIS or that previously provided supports had not enabled the same level of social and economic participation.