SZWV and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by SZWV for review of a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) regarding his statement of participant supports. The core of the dispute was whether funding for a Mollii Suit constituted a "reasonable and necessary support" under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act 2013 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining this issue.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the Mollii Suit met the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports as defined by the NDIS Act. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the support would be effective and beneficial for SZWV, having regard to current good practice, as stipulated by section 34(1)(d) of the Act. This involved evaluating the available evidence, including expert opinion, the lived experience of the participant and carers, and any relevant literature or consensus of expert opinion.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there was a paucity of refereed literature and no evidence of other children in like circumstances using the technology, the ordinary meaning of "effective" and "beneficial" needed to be applied. Evidence from SZWV's mother indicated significant improvements in his gross motor skills, posture, sleep, and a reduction in headaches during the period he used the Mollii Suit, with a noticeable decline upon cessation. The Tribunal also noted that SZWV himself expressed a desire to use the suit again because it made him "feel better." Considering this evidence alongside the goals outlined in SZWV's NDIS plan, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports were satisfied.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision of 8 September 2021. In substitution, the Tribunal ordered that funding for a Mollii Suit for SZWV, in the sum of $10,500, be provided as a reasonable and necessary support under the NDIS.