Rooney and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Mr Rooney, for review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute centred on whether the Applicant required support from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for a motorised scooter, crutches, and orthotics. The decision under review had affirmed the NDIA's refusal to fund these items. The case was heard by Senior Member R Cameron of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the proposed interventions, specifically the motorised scooter, crutches, and orthotics, met the criteria for NDIS support as outlined in section 25(1)(c) of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). This required determining whether these items were necessary to address the Applicant's substantially reduced functional capacity and whether they were likely to improve his condition or prevent further deterioration. The Tribunal also considered the weight to be given to the evidence provided by various medical and allied health professionals.

The Tribunal preferred the opinions of Dr Haynes and Dr Love, who were described as vastly experienced and qualified medical specialists, over the evidence of Mr McCann, a physiotherapist, and Mr Harmes, a podiatrist. The Tribunal noted that Dr Haynes and Dr Love gave their evidence from the witness box, which was considered an advantage over the other professionals. The Tribunal found that the evidence of Dr Haynes and Dr Love indicated that the proposed interventions were unlikely to improve the Applicant's knee condition or prevent its deterioration to the extent required by section 25(1)(c) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.