Ransom and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr. Ransom for review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The NDIA had affirmed its earlier decision regarding Mr. Ransom's statement of participant supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The dispute centred on whether four fixed ceiling hoist tracks with a lateral motor and the Sure Hands System constituted reasonable and necessary supports for Mr. Ransom.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the NDIA's decision to affirm its previous decision, which excluded the requested hoist tracks and Sure Hands System from Mr. Ransom's NDIS plan, was the correct and preferable decision. This involved assessing whether these supports met the criteria for "reasonable and necessary" as defined by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), which govern what constitutes reasonable and necessary supports. The Tribunal found that while the hoist tracks and Sure Hands System might offer some benefit, they did not meet the threshold of being reasonably required to meet Mr. Ransom's disability-related needs. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the supports were likely to be effective and beneficial, whether they represented value for money, and whether they were most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS rather than other mainstream services. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish that these specific supports were reasonably necessary for Mr. Ransom.

The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision.