Ulrick and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1957

Ulrick and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1957 (25 September 2025)
Applicant:Mandy Ulrick
Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2024/1226

Tribunal:General Member A Colvin
Place:Brisbane
Date:25 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

......................................................
General Member A Colvin
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – access – adult participant – whether applicant meets disability requirements under section 24 of the NDIS Act – whether substantially reduced functional capacity in undertaking one or more of activities under paragraph 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (Cth)
Cases
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 60
National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2015] FCA 544
Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544
National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002
Madelaine and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 4025
Davis and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 1437
Burrows and National Disability Insurance Agency 2025 [ARTA] 607
Foster and National Disability Insurance Agency 2025 [ARTA] 718
Secondary Materials
NDIS – Applying to the NDIS Guidelines
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

This review is about whether Ms Ulrick should be granted access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Ms Ulrick is 45 years old and lives in south-east Queensland. She ceased work some years ago and receives a disability support pension. She has adult children and young grandchildren. She seeks access to the NDIS based on impairments arising from mental health conditions and a chronic skin condition (hidradenitis suppurativa).
Ms Ulrick applied to the National Disability Insurance Agency (Agency) to become a participant in the NDIS but on 16 October 2023 the Agency decided that she did not meet the criteria to become a participant. It confirmed that decision on internal review on 8 February 2024.
Ms Ulrick applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 27 February 2024 seeking review of the Agency’s decision. From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal). Applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.[1]
[1] Transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Documents available to the Tribunal included:
·a Hearing Bundle (HB) comprised of 284 pages (Exhibit 1);
·An email from Ms Ulrick 24 July 2025, containing her final statement and submission (Exhibit 2); and
·An email from the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ulrick and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insu...

Details

AGLC: Ulrick and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1957
Case: [2025] ARTA 1957
Decision Date: 25 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ulrick v Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS), the primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Ulrick met the disability requirements under section 24 of the NDIS Act, specifically whether she had substantially reduced functional capacity in undertaking one or more activities as per paragraph 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. The dispute arose from the NDIS Agency's decision to deny Ms Ulrick access to the scheme based on an assessment of her eligibility. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing this decision and determining whether the Agency's findings were correct.

The legal issues the Tribunal had to address included whether Ms Ulrick's physical and psychological conditions met the criteria for a disability under the NDIS Act and, more specifically, whether these conditions resulted in a substantially reduced capacity in undertaking certain activities. The Tribunal had to consider medical evidence and expert assessments, including reports from occupational therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and general practitioners, to assess the severity and impact of Ms Ulrick's conditions on her daily functioning.

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that while Ms Ulrick did have impairments attributable to both physical and psychological conditions, these did not necessarily result in a substantially reduced functional capacity in undertaking one or more activities as required by the NDIS Act. The Tribunal found that although Ms Ulrick's conditions were severe and impacted her life significantly, they did not meet the threshold for substantially reduced capacity in the activities specified under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Agency's decision that Ms Ulrick did not meet the access criteria for the NDIS.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the detailed analysis of the medical evidence provided, which indicated that while Ms Ulrick had significant impairments, these did not equate to the level of functional limitation required for NDIS eligibility. The Tribunal's final orders affirmed the decision under review, denying Ms Ulrick access to the NDIS based on the findings that her conditions did not meet the necessary criteria for substantially reduced functional capacity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In her letter dated 17 April 2024, Ms Ulrick explained the impact that her conditions have had on her.[43] She described the pain and complex treatment related to her skin condition. She said her mental conditions had spanned 20 years and that she struggled daily with OCD, only leaving her house for medical appointments. She said her social life was non-existent, and that she panicked around unfamiliar noises and places.[43] C2THE EVIDENCE Ms Atkinson, an independent occupational therapist, provided a functional capacity assessment dated 27 February 2025. This followed an assessment undertaken on 6 February 2025 at the request of the Agency.[44][44] D2 The material before the Tribunal also includes various documents completed by Ms Ulrick’s GP, Dr Kelly. Ms Ulrick has attended the practice where Dr Kelly works since 2001. Ms Ulrick’s psychologist, Mr Brownhill, completed documents including a report dated 14 June 2023 and a response to targeted questions dated 1 September 2024.[45] Ms Ulrick’s psychiatrist, Dr Garg, also provided a letter dated 12 September 2023.[46] There are also letters from Dr Garg to Dr Kelly dated 25 August 2023 and 24 October 2023.[47] [45] T11 and C6 respectively[46] T15[47] T14 and C5 respectively There is also some correspondence from Gold Coast University Hospital where Ms Ulrick was being treated for her skin condition. This includes correspondence from Dr Ijdo, Director of Rheumatology. Ms Bawden, a Manager with Centacare also provided a letter dated 10 May 2022 regarding the assistance that organisation had provided Ms Ulrick.CONSIDERATIONThe disability requirements There are five criteria in subsection 24(1) of the NDIS Act. All of these must be satisfied for a person to meet the disability requirements. A disability attributable to an impairment The Agency conceded that Ms Ulrick has physical impairments attributable to her skin condition (hidradenitis suppurativa) and psychosocial impairments attributable to the following psychological conditions, meeting the requirements of paragraph 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act. Regarding Ms Ulrick’s mental health conditions, Dr Garg stated in a letter dated 12 September 2023 that Ms Ulrick had complex PTSD, panic disorder, and major depressive disorder that was treatment refractory.[48] More recently Mr Brownhill described the appropriate diagnoses as major depressive disorder, OCD, generalised anxiety disorder, agoraphobia and complex PTSD (in his response to targeted questions dated 1 September 2024). Mr Brownhill described Ms Ulrick’s associated impairments as reduced cognitive ability, decreased socialising, less general activity, compulsions, restricted activities (including not attending new places), being ‘triggered’ in certain situations, avoiding public spaces, and being fearful in public places. [48] T15 Ms Atkinson administered a Montreal Cognitive Assessment. She noted Ms Ulrick’s low score. She observed that Ms Ulrick’s score did not indicate cognitive impairment but Ms Atkinson also expressed caution regarding use of that assessment.

Decision

Reasons for decision

As neither the disability requirements nor the early intervention requirements are met, Ms Ulrick does not meet the access criteria in section 21 of the NDIS Act. DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Ms Bawden, a Manager with Centacare also provided a letter dated 10 May 2022 regarding the assistance that organisation had provided Ms Ulrick.CONSIDERATIONThe disability requirements There are five criteria in subsection 24(1) of the NDIS Act. All of these must be satisfied for a person to meet the disability requirements. A disability attributable to an impairment The Agency conceded that Ms Ulrick has physical impairments attributable to her skin condition (hidradenitis suppurativa) and psychosocial impairments attributable to the following psychological conditions, meeting the requirements of paragraph 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act. Regarding Ms Ulrick’s mental health conditions, Dr Garg stated in a letter dated 12 September 2023 that Ms Ulrick had complex PTSD, panic disorder, and major depressive disorder that was treatment refractory.[48] More recently Mr Brownhill described the appropriate diagnoses as major depressive disorder, OCD, generalised anxiety disorder, agoraphobia and complex PTSD (in his response to targeted questions dated 1 September 2024). Mr Brownhill described Ms Ulrick’s associated impairments as reduced cognitive ability, decreased socialising, less general activity, compulsions, restricted activities (including not attending new places), being ‘triggered’ in certain situations, avoiding public spaces, and being fearful in public places. [48] T15 Ms Atkinson administered a Montreal Cognitive Assessment. She noted Ms Ulrick’s low score. She observed that Ms Ulrick’s score did not indicate cognitive impairment but Ms Atkinson also expressed caution regarding use of that assessment. Mr Brownhill commenced treating Ms Ulrick in 2022 and by September 2024, he had seen her in 18 sessions. He has therefore had significant contact with Ms Ulrick and has provided more recent information than Dr Garg. I am satisfied based on Mr Brownhill’s response to targeted questions that Ms Ulrick has major depressive disorder, OCD, generalised anxiety disorder, agoraphobia and complex PTSD. She has impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable including impaired cognition, reduced motivation, impaired mood or emotional function, avoidance and compulsions. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of paragraph 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act are met regarding psychosocial impairment from Ms Ulrick’s psychological conditions, and that the Agency’s concession in that respect is appropriately made. Regarding Ms Ulrick’s skin condition, Dr Ijdo wrote in November 2020 that Ms Ulrick had hidradenitis suppurativa.[49] More recently, Dr Kelly provided a letter dated 27 July 2023 regarding Ms Ulrick’s skin condition. He stated that Ms Ulrick had been diagnosed with hidradenitis suppurativa. He described this as a progressive, chronic skin condition and noted that it was stage II, which is characterised by recurrent lesions, scarring and tunnelling.[50] [49] T4[50] T13 Ms Atkinson set out in her report the symptoms that Ms Ulrick relayed to her, related to her skin condition. Ms Atkinson reported that Ms Ulrick developed abscesses, approximately fortnightly, that were very painful and affected functioning depending on where the abscess formed.[51] [51] HB page 234