Rieser and National Disability Insurance Agency

This case concerned an application for review by an applicant seeking access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The applicant had a diagnosed neurological impairment, dystonia, and also presented evidence of major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had affirmed its decision to refuse access. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the disability requirements under section 24 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 (Cth) or the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant's impairments were attributable to a disability, whether these impairments were permanent, and whether they resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity in specific domains, namely communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, and self-management. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant met the early intervention requirements, which involve demonstrating that early intervention supports would likely reduce future support needs or prevent deterioration of functional capacity, and that such supports were most appropriately funded by the NDIS. The Tribunal was guided by the NDIS Operational Guidelines and relevant case law, including *Mulligan* and *Foster*, which emphasise a functional and practical assessment of a person's capabilities.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's neurological impairment was permanent and likely attributable to a disability, the impairments associated with his psychosocial conditions were not demonstrated to be permanent. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not have a substantially reduced functional capacity in any of the six specified domains, despite acknowledging some limitations due to his dystonia. For instance, while his mobility was affected by tremors and balance issues, he could still mobilise independently and perform necessary tasks. Similarly, in self-care, he used modified techniques but did not require assistance from others for core activities. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet the early intervention requirements, as the evidence did not demonstrate that proposed supports were likely to reduce future needs, and many recommended interventions were more appropriately funded through other systems like Medicare.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the disability requirements under section 24 or the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's impairments, as assessed, did not meet the threshold for access to the NDIS.