Pearson and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) regarding a participant's plan. The applicant, who has diagnosed conditions including Autism Spectrum Disorder, sought additional funding for supports that were not included in her initial plan. Following an internal review, some additional supports were approved, but the applicant remained dissatisfied and sought review by the Tribunal. The NDIA then sought an interlocutory direction from the Tribunal compelling the applicant to participate in an in-person functional assessment by an occupational therapist, Dr Micah Perez, to assist in determining the reasonableness and necessity of the requested supports.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it ought to exercise its discretion to direct the applicant to participate in an in-person occupational therapy assessment. This involved considering the scope of the Tribunal's directions-making power under section 33 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and whether such a direction was necessary or appropriate in the specific circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the applicant's diagnosed conditions and the availability of alternative assessment methods.

The Tribunal, applying its earlier decision in *Pearson (No 1)*, acknowledged that its directions-making power was broad enough to compel participation in an assessment. However, it held that there was no automatic entitlement to such a direction, and the decision rested on the proper exercise of discretion. The Tribunal reasoned that an assessment using telehealth facilities, as previously directed, was a reasonable request and could provide the necessary information to assist the Tribunal in determining the reasonableness and necessity of the supports. Given that a telehealth assessment was available and considered reasonable, the Tribunal concluded that it was not necessary to direct the applicant to participate in an in-person assessment.

Accordingly, the Tribunal refused to make an order directing the applicant to participate in an in-person assessment by Dr Micah Perez. The NDIA was advised that it could still request the applicant participate in the telehealth assessment previously directed in *Pearson (No 1)*, provided the required notice was given.