Short and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Jayden Short (the applicant) for review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the respondent) that he did not meet the access criteria for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) under section 21 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). The applicant, a 22-year-old, had lodged an access request form in February 2019, supported by medical documentation from his general practitioner and an orthopaedic surgeon, detailing his condition of Scheuermann's disease and the assistance he required with mobility, showering, and self-management tasks such as cooking and cleaning. The respondent initially decided the applicant did not meet the access requirements, specifically citing the criterion in section 24(1)(b) that an impairment must be permanent or likely to be permanent. An internal review confirmed this decision, again highlighting the permanency criteria as the primary issue. The applicant sought review of this internal review decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the access criteria for the NDIS, specifically focusing on whether his impairments were permanent or likely to be permanent, and whether these impairments resulted in a substantially reduced functional capacity. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether the applicant satisfied the criteria relating to the need for lifetime NDIS support, early intervention supports, and whether the NDIS was the most appropriate support system. The applicant contended that the respondent's assessment of his functional impact was incorrect and disagreed with the overall reasoning and conclusions presented in the refusal letters.

The Tribunal considered various medical reports and assessments, including those from a rehabilitation physician, general practitioner, orthopaedic surgeon, and an exercise physiologist. The respondent's internal review report indicated that while the applicant met the age and residence criteria, he failed to satisfy the disability requirements under section 24, including permanence, and the early intervention criteria under section 25. The applicant's grounds for review specifically challenged the assessment of his functional impact and the respondent's interpretation of the relevant rules. The Tribunal's reasoning and final orders are not detailed in the provided text.