TRVH and National Disability Insurance Agency

The applicant, TRVH, sought review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to refuse funding for therapeutic remedial massage sessions. The NDIA had previously affirmed its original decision, finding that the requested support was neither reasonable and necessary nor most appropriately funded by the NDIS.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether two-to-three therapeutic remedial massage sessions per week constituted a reasonable and necessary support for the applicant, and whether such support was most appropriately funded by the NDIS, as stipulated by section 34(1) of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth).

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency*, which emphasize that access to NDIS supports is reserved for a subcategory of persons with disabilities whose impairments have severe and permanent effects justifying "reasonable and necessary supports." The Tribunal considered reports from various health practitioners, including a pain medicine specialist and a clinical psychologist, which indicated the applicant suffered from chronic abdominal pain and other pains that aggravated her mood and required regular analgesics. An occupational therapist recommended remedial massage for pain management, noting its impact on the applicant's mental health and the need for ongoing sessions. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant had not met the criteria under sections 34(1)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requested therapeutic remedial massage sessions were not reasonable and necessary supports for the applicant and affirmed the NDIA's decision.