Settle and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) by Ms Settle, who sought to establish that she met the disability requirements under the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth). The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had made a decision to refuse access, which Ms Settle sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal. Ms Settle's application was based on a range of conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chemical sensitivity, Graves' disease, and hyperthyroidism.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Settle had a disability attributable to physical and psychosocial impairments, and whether these impairments were permanent or likely to be permanent. Specifically, the court had to consider if there were known, available, and appropriate treatments likely to remedy the impairments, and whether further investigations were required to determine the permanency of these impairments. The assessment of permanency also involved considering the degree of severity and the enduring nature of the impairments, necessitating ongoing supports.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Ms Settle had established impairments of CFS and fibromyalgia, accepting the uncontested evidence of Dr Parkes regarding her diagnoses and the constellation of symptoms arising from central sensitisation syndrome. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Ms Settle had adequately substantiated a diagnosis of IBS, Graves' disease, or hyperthyroidism to the required degree of precision for the purposes of the NDIS Act. Regarding permanency, the Tribunal considered the definition of an "available treatment" and the meaning of "remedy" as a cure or removal of an impairment. The Tribunal noted that an impairment is permanent if it has an enduring nature and requires ongoing supports, and that permanency is only demonstrated if no further medical treatment or review is required.

The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision, concluding that while Ms Settle had established certain impairments, she had not satisfied the requirements for permanency under the NDIS Act. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the impairments were permanent or likely to be permanent, nor that there were no known, available, and evidence-based treatments likely to remedy them, nor that no further medical treatment or review was required to demonstrate their permanency.