Stephenson and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr Stephenson for funding from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) for driveway modifications. The dispute centred on whether these modifications constituted "reasonable and necessary supports" under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the application.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the proposed driveway modifications related to Mr Stephenson's disability, and whether they represented value for money. The NDIA argued that the modifications were to address a pre-existing design flaw in the driveway, independent of Mr Stephenson's disability, and that he had alternative vehicles available that did not ground on the driveway. Mr Stephenson contended that the modifications were necessary due to his loss of mobility and independence following a stroke, which made him reliant on others for transport and limited his ability to access community services.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence that Mr Stephenson could not negotiate the driveway unassisted due to his stroke-related impairments, including reduced strength, instability, balance issues, and a high fall risk. It found that the proposed modifications were directly related to his disability, aiming to provide a safe transfer area and overcome the grounding problem, thereby enhancing his independence and ability to access transport. While acknowledging the NDIA's concerns about value for money and the lack of precise costings and feasibility studies for the proposed modifications, the Tribunal noted that if the modifications could be completed at a reasonable cost (estimated at $60,000), they would likely represent value for money given the significant long-term benefits to Mr Stephenson's independence and potential cost savings compared to alternative supports.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision. However, due to insufficient evidence regarding the precise cost and feasibility of the proposed modifications, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with recommendations, rather than making a substituted decision.