Kuzio-Barnes and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)

Case [2025] ARTA 1804

Kuzio-Barnes and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1804 (16 September 2025)

Applicant:Svetlana Kuzio-Barnes

Respondent:  National Disability Insurance Agency

Tribunal Number:                2023/0926

Tribunal:General Member W Strange

Place:Brisbane

Date:16 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and this matter is remitted to the Agency for reconsideration with directions that:

(a)The Applicant’s current Statement of Participant Supports is to include the following additional supports, in the form of modifications to the Applicant’s residence:

i.Construction of a concrete path to the right-hand side of the residence.

ii.Construction of a concrete path to the left-hand side of the residence.

iii.The installation of a mobility scooter charging point in the patio area.

iv.Widening of the rear garage door.

(b)The additional supports are to be constructed/installed as provided in the relevant building quotations as noted in this decision.

(c)All other supports in the Applicant’s current Statement of Participant Supports, excepting any one-off assistive technology and home modification supports already provided, are to be replicated from the date on which the supports specified in paragraph (a) are included in the Applicant’s Statement of Participant Supports until the reassessment date.

..................[SGD]....................

General Member W Strange

Catchwords

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – adult participant – reduced functional mobility – reasonable and necessary supports – complex home modifications – construction of concrete pathways – door widening – decision under review set aside and matter remitted to Respondent to include specified supports in Applicant’s Statement of Participant Supports.

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024

Cases

Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60

G v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 79
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
National Disability Insurance Agency and Warwick [2025] FCAFC 100

National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79
QGRY and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 598
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634,
Shi v Migration Agents’ Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Sutherland v National Disability Insurance Scheme [2024] AATA 411
Warwick v National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] FCA 16

Secondary Materials

National Disability Insurance Scheme Operational Guidelines – ‘Reasonable and Necessary Supports’ and ‘Home Modifications’
National Disability Insurance Scheme policy – ‘Home modifications - Guidance for builders and designers’ Version 2.0, September 2022

Statement of Reasons

INTRODUCTION

  1. Ms Svetlana Kuzio-Barnes is the Applicant in this review (the Applicant).…

Continue reading Kuzio-Barnes and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kuzio-Barnes and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1804
Case
[2025] ARTA 1804
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Ms Kuzio-Barnes, an NDIS participant, challenging a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) to deny funding for certain home modifications, including the construction of concrete pathways and door widening. The dispute was brought before the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal), following an internal review by the NDIS. The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the requested home modifications were reasonable and necessary supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act 2013 (Cth), and whether they would assist Ms Kuzio-Barnes to gain additional enjoyment or benefit from her property and facilitate her economic or community participation.

The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by both parties and the Agency's guidelines on reasonable and necessary supports and home modifications. The Agency argued that the requested supports did not address Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ needs arising from her impairments, would not assist her to gain additional enjoyment or benefit from her property, and were not effective and beneficial for her. The Agency also contended that the supports would not facilitate Ms Kuzio-Barnes' economic or community participation, and that providing safe access to her property was a day-to-day living cost that was reasonable for her to bear. In contrast, Ms Kuzio-Barnes argued that the home modifications were essential for her health, safety, and quality of life, and would enable her to access her property safely and independently.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal found that the requested home modifications were reasonable and necessary supports for Ms Kuzio-Barnes. The Tribunal concluded that the modifications would assist Ms Kuzio-Barnes to gain additional enjoyment or benefit from her property and facilitate her economic or community participation, as they would address her needs arising from her impairments and enable her to access her property safely and independently. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Agency to include the specified supports in Ms Kuzio-Barnes' Statement of Participant Supports.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Turning to the requirements of section 34(1) of the NDIS Act, the Agency submitted:(aa)It was accepted that Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ mobility restrictions arise from her physical and psychosocial impairments, which meet the disability requirements in section 24 of the NDIs Act. However, for the above reasons none of the supports in issue will assist Ms Kuzio-Barnes to gain any additional enjoyment or benefit from her property and hence the requested supports do not address ‘needs’ of Ms Kuzio-Barnes arising from those impairments,(a) As none of the supports in issue will assist Ms Kuzio-Barnes to gain any additional enjoyment or benefit from her property, they will not assist her to pursue her goals, objectives and aspirations.(b)Each of the home modifications would be used by Ms Kuzio-Barnes in her home, and thus would not facilitate her economic or community participation. While accepting that Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ social participation does encompass her engagement in some activities with her support workers while they attend her home, Ms Kuzio-Barnes cannot engage in some of the activities the support workers undertake (such as hanging out the washing), and this inability does not reduce her social participation: To the extent that her support workers are providing social engagement, that is most appropriately provided during activities in which the Participant can participate without restriction.Further, as set out above, the Agency contends that the Right Path, Left Path, Patio Modifications and Garage Door Widening will not assist the Participant to engage in any activities with her support workers other than activities which are already accessible to her via other means.(c)Rule 3.1(a) of the Support Rules requires the Tribunal to assess whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost. The existing funded supports achieve the same outcome at no additional cost. Provision of the requested supports does not provide value for money.(d)As none of the supports in issue will assist Ms Kuzio-Barnes to gain any additional enjoyment or benefit from her property, provision of them will not be effective and beneficial for Ms Kuzio-Barnes.(e)Where the property is prone to becoming boggy or otherwise is of uneven terrain, any person would require paving to ensure safe access. To the extent that the requested supports are required due to the uneven nature of the terrain, providing safe access is a day-to-day living cost (Rule 5.1(d) of the Support Rules), arising for all homeowners, and it is reasonable for Ms Kuzio-Barnes as the homeowner to provide those items. (f)To the extent that the requested supports are required due to the terrain and weather patterns, they are not ‘NDIS supports’, as they are day-to-day household living costs.[90] Otherwise it was accepted that the requested supports are NDIS supports, being encompassed in ‘home modifications design and construction’.[91]Additionally, pursuant to section 7 of the Miscellaneous Transitional Rules, the Agency did not contend that the requested supports are more appropriately funded by any general system of service delivery or support service. [90] See the Transitional Rules; Schedule 2, Item 1, supports (c) and (e).[91] Ibid, Schedule 1, Item 22.Ms Haberley’s evidence at the hearing

Decision

Reasons for decision

After receiving that internal review decision (the decision under review), on 14 February 2023 Ms Kuzio-Barnes lodged an application for review with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT), pursuant to section 103 of the NDIS Act.[7][7] T-Documents, Document T1, Application for Review of Decision, 14 February 2023, pages 1-21. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal. Upon receiving notice of the application for review made to the Tribunal, the Agency filed with the Tribunal copies of documents relating to that application, pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the T-Documents). As can be seen from the date Ms Kuzio-Barnes lodged her review application in the AAT, the matter has had a lengthy history in the Tribunal. During the course of the review a further NDIS plan was approved for Ms Kuzio-Barnes, for the period from 11 June 2024 to 11 June 2025. Pursuant to section 103 of the NDIS Act, the review application before the Tribunal is also taken to be an application for review of the decision to approve the SOPS in that new plan. Initially, there was a large number of supports in issue in the review. As the review progressed through the Tribunal’s alternative dispute resolution processes, Ms Kuzio-Barnes and the Agency were able to reach agreement that many of those supports were ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports for Ms Kuzio-Barnes, and these supports have been or are to be funded. It is useful to set out those supports upon which agreement was reached, as they provide some indication of the extent of Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ impairments and her support needs, and the Agency’s position in relation to some other home modifications that were requested. The following list was outlined in the Agency’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (the Agency’s SFIC),[8] which was the Agency’s primary written submission before the Tribunal at the hearing:[8] Agency’s SFIC, [17]. ·45 hours per year occupational therapy;·3 hours per year podiatry;·funding of $600 for one pair of orthotics;·electric powered bed frame with adaptive features and anti-pressure mattress (not funded in Current Plan as already funded and purchased during prior plan period);·a total of 65 hours per year of improved relationships funding;·42 hours per week support worker support for personal care and domestic support;·a total of 20 hours per week support worker support for social, community and civic participation;·3 hours per year dietician support;·54 hours per year physiotherapy;·54 hours per year exercise physiology;·52 hours per year level 2 therapy assistance;·funding of $18,778.66 for continence support;·funding for Permobil M3 powered wheelchair;·funding for Pride Pathrider 140XL mobility scooter;·funding for home lift installation; and·funding for complex home modifications including door widenings, bathroom modifications, ramp access to front entry and ramp access to rear entry.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The Agency has also issued some Operational Guidelines which are relevant to NDIS supports, including those guidelines entitled Reasonable and Necessary Supports and Home Modifications. Such guidelines are published on the NDIS website and are described by the NDIA as guidelines that set out some of the NDIA’s ‘operational information’: ‘[T]hey explain what we need to consider and how we make decisions based on the legislation.’ [29]. [29] See >The Tribunal was also referred to the Agency’s Home modifications guidance for builders and designers policy during the review.Unlike NDIS Rules, NDIS Guidelines are not made pursuant to a power conferred by the NDIS Act; they are issued in an exercise of executive power.[30] As such, the Guidelines set out the NDIA’s policy and provide guidance in how relevant powers are to be exercised. Ordinarily the Tribunal will apply such policy in reviewing a decision, unless the policy is unlawful, or unless its application tends to produce an unjust decision in the circumstances of the particular case.[31]CONSIDERATION[30] G v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 79, [18].[31] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 (President Brennan J).The circumstances of Ms Kuzio-BarnesTo place the requested supports in context, it is helpful to note some of the evidence about Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ impairments, their impact on her life, and her living circumstances. Ms Kuzio-Barnes is now 55 years of age. She lives by herself on a small acreage property in the Fraser Coast area of Queensland, and cares for a number of animals that live at her property – some sheep, dogs, cats and chickens. Ms Kuzio-Barnes gave evidence that she has lived at this property for ‘the last 20 years.’[32] The independent Occupational Therapist engaged by the Agency to undertake an assessment during this review, Mr O’Dowd, described the home in the following terms:Her home is spread over two levels, with a garage separate to the primary house, a long driveway from the road/front gate to her front door, an inground pool, and various garden beds/greenhoused areas.[33][32] Evidence of Ms Kuzio-Barnes, 24 March 2025. Other evidence indicated the home was built in 2007, meaning that the period of Ms Kuzio-Barnes residing there was approximately 18 years, rather than 20.[33] Hearing Bundle, Document R1, Report of Mr Chris O’Dowd, 1 November 2023, pages 1216-1265 (Mr O’Dowd’s report), at page 1226.Ms Elizabeth Haberley is an Occupational Therapist who practises primarily in the area of home modifications. Ms Haberley has provided assistance to Ms Kuzio-Barnes, and gave evidence in the review hearing. Some reports prepared by Ms Haberley were in evidence; being an NDIS Complex Home Modification Form, dated 29 November 2023,[34] and an accompanying ‘Brief for Building Works Contractor’ of the same date.[35][34] Hearing Bundle, Document A39, NDIS Complex Home Modification form, completed by Ms Elizabeth Haberley, Occupational Therapist, dated 29 November 2023, pages 792-817.[35] Hearing Bundle, Document A40, Brief for Building Works Contractor, RAR Therapy (Ms Elizabeth Haberley), dated 29 November 2023, pages 818-826.The reports compiled by Mr O’Dowd and Ms Haberley (and some others in evidence) contained photographs and floor plans of Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ home, and also provided other relevant information about the home. From these sources, the following further information is noted:·Ms Kuzio-Barnes owns her home.·It was built in 2007, and is 465 square meters in size, with the overall land size being 2.12 hectares.·The home is highset and of two levels, tiled throughout, with five bedrooms, three bathrooms and laundry downstairs; and kitchen, dining, lounge, rumpus room, two studies and a balcony on the upstairs level.·The land immediately surrounding the home was reported to be ‘level’.·Ms Kuzio-Barnes has an adult daughter who resides in Brisbane, but who intends to move back to the family home in the future, to raise her children there.·Remaining in the home is an NDIS goal for Ms Kuzio-Barnes, who would like to live there ‘for at least the next 5 to 10 years.’Ms Haberley also noted the following information in her NDIS Complex Home Modification Form:Svetlana currently relies on assistive technology including a Zimmer hopper frame, crutches and wheelchair for all mobility. It is noted that she will also require a powered mobility device. She demonstrates extreme difficulty with all mobility due to rapid fatigue on exertion, reduced range of movement, decreased strength and very high pain levels. She uses a hired mobility scooter to access the outside of her home and requires manual wheelchair for inside access … Svetlana added that the ability to access the entire perimeter of her home is very important for her health and safety, quality of life and ability to interact with her animals, family and property.[36]…She has extremely high risk of falls/entrapment. There are uneven ground/pebbles on the pathway access to perimeter of dwelling. Difficulty noted using hired scooter over this surface (high risk of tipping noted). Svetlana will require a suitable powered mobility device for all mobility.[37]…OT notes there are several gates that she must negotiate and observed her having extreme difficulty opening/closing and fitting mobility scooter through. OT recommends that 2 gates are modified/widened to allow PMD[38] access. This will ensure that Svetlana is able to continue with the task of caring for her animals with improved safety and independence. …[36] Hearing Bundle, Document A39, NDIS Complex Home Modification form, 29 November 2023, page 808.[37] Ibid, page 809.[38] ‘Personal mobility device’.[39] Hearing Bundle, Document A39, NDIS Complex Home Modification form, page 110.OT also notes that the pathway access around dwelling is gravel/pebbles. OT observed Svetlana using her hired all terrain scooter over this surface and there is concern over scooter tipping on this uneven, moving surface. Provision of suitable 1200mm wide pathways are strongly recommended to allow Svetlana to continue to access her home and surrounding property with improved safety, independence and dignity. There is otherwise a very high risk of tipping and entrapment with potential risk of severe injury.[39]A hand-drawn plan of the layout of the property as prepared by Ms Kuzio-Barnes was in evidence,[40] and based on that document and the photos of the property that were in evidence, the Agency noted the following about the property in its SFIC:From these documents it can be seen that, looking from the front of the home:·There is a bitumen driveway connecting the home to the garage, which is located to the left of the house. The driveway appears to be in very good condition.·The front door is accessed by paving from the driveway, and there is a portico over the front door.·Immediately against the left hand wall of the house and running around the back of the house is a narrow path which is two concrete pavers wide. There is a fence between the driveway and this path at the front left hand corner of the house. The Participant[41] is of the view that this path is too narrow to accommodate all four wheels of the mobility scooter (that is, only one side of the scooter would be on the path while the other side would be on the adjacent grass).·Immediately against the right hand wall of the house from the front portico running to the patio on the right hand side of the house is a wide, flat gravel path. The Participant is of the view that the mobility scooter will not be stable on this terrain.·Between the side door of the house on the right hand side and the pool, also on the right hand side, is a large paved patio. This is partially sheltered from the elements by the second storey of the house. At present, the sheltered area is enclosed by fly screens. The paving runs up to the pool fence.·The Participant has a number of items of plant and outdoor furniture around the property, which are shown on the diagram.[42][40] Hearing Bundle, Document A64, Diagram of Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ property, 30 August 2024, page 947.[41] This is Ms Kuzio-Barnes.[42] Hearing Bundle, Agency’s SFIC, pages 5-6.Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ current NDIS plan, for the period from 11 June 2024 to 11 June 2025, was in evidence.[43] As required, that plan contains information about Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ goals, one of which was expressed to be:I would like to continue living in my own home and want to make it secure, safe, hazard free and wheelchair accessible.[44][43] Hearing Bundle, Document R6, NDIS Plan, 11 June 2024, pages 1392-1406. [44] Ibid, page 1398. The other goals in Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ plan were:I would like to improve my daily function to safely engage in my day-today activities.I would like to be able to reduce the effects my mental and physical state are having on my life.I would like to increase my participation in the community to develop a socially valued role and meaningful place in the community.I would like to retrain and develop my capacity to return to volunteer or employment.I would like to improve my independence in all aspects of my life.I would like to improve my health and wellbeing and increase my fitness.Ms Kuzio-Barnes filed a large volume of material during the course of the review, including a detailed reply to the Agency’s SFIC[45] and a lengthy statement of lived experience.[46] Additionally, Ms Kuzio-Barnes gave evidence at the hearing and made lengthy oral submissions about the supports in issue. The Tribunal also had before it the T-Documents and other evidentiary materials filed by the Agency. The following evidence summarises Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ circumstances and the reasons why she has requested that the supports in issue be funded by the NDIS.[45] Hearing Bundle, Document 3, Applicant’s Response to the Agency’s Statement of Facts, issues and Contentions, pages 26-37.[46] Hearing Bundle, Document A31, Statement of Participant Lived Experience (Ms Kuzio-Barnes), 22 June 2023, pages 721-763. Ms Kuzio-Barnes sustained physical and psychosocial injuries as a result of violent criminal offending committed against her in 2018. She was diagnosed with PTSD later that year (as well as Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder and Chronic Pain). Some of the impacts from her trauma and these conditions included Ms Kuzio-Barnes becoming overwhelmed and anxious upon leaving her house, experiencing difficulties with concentration and focus, withdrawing from her occupation and social interaction, and experiencing a persistent state of hypervigilance.[47] [47] Hearing Bundle, Document A1, Report of Clinical Psychologist, 12 May 2020, pages 317-322.The evidence regarding Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ physical conditions reflects that Ms Kuzio-Barnes:· Experiences severe and regular pain; tightness and spasms in her lower back, pelvis, hips and lower limbs; a reduced range of motion and stiffness; fatigue; weakness and muscle wasting; incontinence; and reduced balance, fitness and functional endurance when engaging in activities such as sitting, standing and bending. These physical impairments will likely deteriorate with time, due to the nature of some of her underlying conditions, and notwithstanding treatment.· Does not have a functional walking capacity and requires assistive technology - crutches and/or a walker or walking frame[48] or wheelchair or mobility scooter - to mobilise, with movement (and also cold) exacerbating her pain. She wears orthotic shoes at all times.· Is significantly underweight.· Can no longer work, having been previously employed as a secondary school teacher.· Has minimal informal supports, being dependent upon her NDIS funded supports.· In undertaking WHODAS[49] assessments, generally scored across all domains indicating severe to extreme levels of impairment, reflective of high care needs.· Has regularly sought and received medical treatment from her General Practitioner, specialists and allied health professionals for her various conditions.[50][48] Ms Kuzio-Barnes gave evidence on 24 March 2025 that she was no longer using her walker.[49] World Health Organisation Disability Assessment.[50] See (for example) Hearing Bundle documents A10 (Report of Occupational therapist Ms Alana Thorpe, 8 November 2022, pages 364-375); A13 (Report of Psychologist, Ms Yvette Kerr, 25 November 2022, page 396); A19 (Medical reports and records of Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ General Practitioner Dr Sarita Gurung, 3 April 2024, pages 409-450); A28 (Physiotherapy Report, Ms Rachael Tassoti, 18 May 2023, pages 690-694); A71 and A72 (two collections of reports from treating doctors and allied health professionals), pages 1005-1059 and 1060-1186; and R1, Mr O’Dowd’s report, pages 1216-1265.In her statement of lived experience dated 23 June 2023, Ms Kuzio-Barnes explained how her disabilities affect her on a daily basis:I struggle with debilitating panic attacks, severe distress, memory loss and severe cognitive dysfunction, severe fatigue and severe 10/10 pain every day, there is no break from it all even for a minute! I do not plan my day around normal every-day activities, I plan my day around managing my pain levels, PTSD and cognitive symptoms, fatigue and distress. Dependent on the quality of sleep I had, the fatigue, mental/memory dysfunction and pain are exacerbated.[51]…[51] Hearing Bundle, Document A31, Statement of Participant Lived Experience (Ms Kuzio-Barnes), 22 June 2023, page 723.[52] This is a reference to Ankylosing Spondylitis.[53] Hearing Bundle, Document A31, Statement of Participant Lived Experience (Ms Kuzio-Barnes), 22 June 2023, pages 724-725.Pain that I am experiencing on a daily basis 24/7 is UNRELENTING and causes me significant problems in my day to day life and severely impacts my quality of life. I am unable to perform most daily functioning, household and self-care tasks without extreme pain and fatigue/exhaustion, overwhelm and exacerbation of my already severe mental health symptoms. Most tasks cause me too much pain to be able to continue and I cannot complete them safely and efficiently. Inflammation causes fatigue and decline in daily functioning also. AS,[52] PsA (psoriatic Arthritis) are autoimmune inflammatory conditions in which pain is often worse at night, which means that I only get 2-3 hours stretch of sleep and then am awake for several hours each night.[53]Ms Kuzio-Barnes also explained her difficulties in mobilising and how she had experienced balance difficulties and ‘many falls’ and was unable to access the upper floor of her own due to her inability to safely manage stairs:[54]I can’t walk without assistive technology (2 crutches, wheelchair, mobility scooter),have to wear specially designed orthotic shoes at all times and cannot walk withoutthem at all, am extremely unbalanced and have fallen many times, on the stairs,[54] Ibid, pages 726 and 730.[55] Ibid, page 737.around my home, I cannot safely mobilise on any uneven surfaces, including grass, unsurfaced areas around my home, sand.[55] Ms Kuzio-Barnes noted that she has no informal supports, and consequentially relies highly upon her NDIS funded supports.[56] Her statement of lived experience contained a detailed schedule of her daily activities and challenges.[57][56] Ibid, page 730.[57] Ibid, pages 739-743.The independent Occupational Therapist Mr O’Dowd commented in his report:Overall it is considered that without doubt that Ms Kuzio-Barnes’ is severely restricted in all areas of her life due to her extensive, significant, and permanent medical conditions.[58][58] Hearing Bundle, Mr O’Dowd’s report, page 1238.The evidence given by Ms Kuzio-Barnes[59] about her disabilities and their impact on her life at the hearing was similar to the information provided in the material filed by her. In her evidence Ms Kuzio-Barnes highlighted the progressive nature of some of her conditions, and also described a fall she experienced in December 2024, noting also the description of this incident provided by her physiotherapist Ms Tassoti in a report dated 4 December 2024:I have been seeing Svetlana regularly through the NDIS for physiotherapy to manage her physical impairments, since January 2021 and saw her for a physiotherapy appointment today. I found her to be in severe pain and having great difficulty mobilising with 2 crutches due to the severe pain and inability to weight bear. She reports this is due to a fall which occurred 2 days ago when she was mobilising with 2 crutches on moving gravel outside her house. This is unsafe for her to be walking over moving gravel and is a high falls risk activity, which has now resulted in significant pain and injury, particularly to her sacro-iliac and lumbar spine joints. Ideally, Svetlana should be supervised while mobilising with 2 crutches, and she must never attempt to mobilise on crutches on any uneven, moving ground, particularly gravel, due to her extremely high falls risk.[60][59] Evidence of Ms Kuzio-Barnes, 24 March 2025.[60] Hearing Bundle, Document A79, Letter from Physiotherapist (Ms Rachael Tassoti), 4 December 2024, page 1215Ms Kuzio-Barnes also noted that initially the builder engaged to quote on the home modification works, including the concrete paths in issue, had proposed constructing a pathway around the entire house.[61] In response to the Agency not accepting this request, she had compromised by proposing the left and right paths.[61] Hearing Bundle, Document A56, Ausnorth Building and Construction quote, 19 March 2024, pages 911-920.Relevant approved supports