SCHW and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by SCHW (the applicant) against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute centred on whether funding for an assistance dog constituted a reasonable and necessary support for the applicant, who has been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine this issue.

The primary legal question before the Tribunal was whether the provision of an assistance dog was a reasonable and necessary support for the applicant, as defined by subsection 34(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). This required an assessment of whether the support would assist the applicant in pursuing her goals and aspirations, and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances, considering the nature and impact of her disabilities. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of existing research on the efficacy of assistance dogs for individuals with psychiatric conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented, including expert testimony from the applicant's clinical psychologist and research articles on the benefits of assistance dogs. The Tribunal accepted the validity of peer-reviewed research, noting that while studies on dissociative identity disorder were limited due to the rarity of the condition, research on post-traumatic stress disorder was relevant given the overlap in symptoms. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in *McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency*, emphasising that the assessment of "reasonable" and "necessary" supports requires a case-by-case evaluation based on probative evidence. The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnoses, the impact of her disabilities, and the potential benefits of an assistance dog, as supported by research, warranted funding.

The Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, finding that funding for an assistance dog was a reasonable and necessary support for the applicant. The Tribunal recommended that decisions regarding assistance animals be made on an individual basis, considering the severity of the disability, the specific tasks the animal can perform to mitigate the disability's impact, and the applicant's capacity to manage the animal's needs.