McFarlane and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr. McFarlane for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Mr. McFarlane, who has lived with fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome since 2008, sought to establish that he met the NDIS access criteria. The dispute centred on whether his conditions constituted a "disability" as defined by the NDIS Act and whether he met the requirements for early intervention support. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the National Disability Insurance Agency's (NDIA) decision to affirm its earlier decision that Mr. McFarlane did not meet the access criteria.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr. McFarlane's fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome qualified as "disability" under the NDIS Act, specifically whether these conditions constituted impairments that resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in one or more activities, affected his capacity for social or economic participation, and were likely to require NDIS support for his lifetime. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the benefit of early intervention support was most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS.

The Tribunal considered evidence from Mr. McFarlane, his treating general practitioner, an occupational therapist, and expert medical opinions. The NDIA argued that the experience of pain from fibromyalgia did not constitute a loss of, or damage to, a physical, sensory, or mental function, and therefore was not an impairment under the Act. Conversely, Mr. McFarlane's representatives contended that his physical impairments caused severe pain, substantially restricting his ability to function. The Tribunal noted that the NDIS definition of disability focuses on the reduction or loss of an ability to perform an activity resulting from an impairment, and that this definition targets individuals with significant functional capacity limitations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr. McFarlane did not meet the access criteria under either section 24 (disability requirements) or section 25 (early intervention requirements) of the NDIS Act. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's internal review decision.