Wood and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)

Wood and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2151 (3 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Wendy WOOD
Respondent:  CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2024/4341

Tribunal:General Member L Proske
Place:Adelaide
Date:3 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review dated 19 June 2024 and 16 May 2025 and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:

1.The statement of participant supports specifies the reasonable and necessary supports include:
a) 80 hours of Psychosocial Recovery Coach supports.
2.All other supports in the Applicant’s existing statement of participant supports are to be replicated pro-rata from the date on which the supports specified in paragraph [1] above are included in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports.
3.The management of funding for reasonable and necessary supports in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports is to remain the same as the management of funding for those supports in the Applicant’s existing statement of participant supports.
4.The date by which the Respondent must reassess the Applicant’s plan is to be 12 months after the date on which the supports in paragraph [1] above are included in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports.

Statement made on 03 October 2025 at 2:06pm
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABLITY INSURANCE SCHEME – reasonable and necessary supports – increased support worker assistance – floatation therapy – remedial massage – alternative and complementary medicine – allied health professional – NDIS support – value for money – effective and beneficial – decision remitted for reconsideration
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1)(Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189
Public Trustee of South Australia (as litigation representative for Isherwood) v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2) [2023] FCA 852
FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114
Secondary Materials
NDIS Guideline – Reasonable and Necessary Supports
NDIS Guideline – Principles we follow to create your plan
Statement of Reasons

The Applicant (Ms Wood) is a 57-year-old female. Ms Wood was granted access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in February 2021 for psychosocial impairments attributable to her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD); and physical impairments arising from her Still’s disease and peripheral neuropathy.[1]
[1] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Respondent’s SFIC), [1], [4].
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION
On 12 April 2024, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency (Respondent) approved a statement of participant supports (SOPS) for inclusion in the Ms Wood’s plan (original decision).[2] On 14 April 2024 Ms Wood requested that the original decision be reviewed, and on 19 June 2024 a reviewer confirmed the original decision (internal review decision).[3]
[2] Exhibit 1 (E1), 136.
[3] E1, 120, 136.
On 20 June 2024, Ms Wood made an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the internal review decision.[4] The AAT had jurisdiction to review the internal review decision under s 103(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act), in combination with s 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).[5]
[4] E1, 25
[5] All sections referred to in this Statement of Reasons, including in the footnotes, are sections in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 unless otherwise stated.
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) was established on 14 October 2024 and replaced the former AAT.[6] Ms Wood’s review application was not finalised before the transition to the ART. Proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before the transition to the ART must be continued and finalised by the ART.[7] In this Statement of Reasons, the ART will hereafter be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’.
[6] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, s 8.
[7] Part 5 to Schedule 16, item 24 of Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024.
ISSUES ON REVIEW
On review Ms Wood is seeking to have funding for increased support worker assistance, floatation therapy, and remedial massage included in her SOPS.
The Respondent contends the supports referred to in paragraph [5] are not reasonable and necessary and cannot be funded in Ms Wood’s SOPS.
The issue on review to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the supports referred to in paragraph [5] are reasonable and necessary, meet the criteria in s 34(1), and are most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS.[8]
[8] Public Trustee of South Australia (as litigation representative for Isherwood) v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2) [2023] FCA 852, [29], [33]; s 34(1); National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1)(Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Miscellaneous Rules), s 7.
Before proceeding further, the Tribunal notes that during the hearing Ms Wood disclosed she had made a request for internal review (May internal review request) under s 100 with respect to the decision made 16 May 2025 to approve the SOPS in her plan which commenced on 16 May 2025. Counsel for the Respondent subsequently received instructions that Ms Wood had made the May internal review request; and documents pertaining to that were not included in Exhibit 1 as, within the context of this review proceeding, the Respondent had been unaware of that.
Counsel for the Respondent was of the view that pursuant to ss 103(2)(c)(ii) and 103(2)(e), this application is also taken to be an application for review of the decision to approve the SOPS in Ms Wood’s new plan; in which case Ms Wood’s internal review request should in fact be taken to be a part of this review. The Tribunal agreed with Counsel for the Respondent with respect to the operation of ss 103(2)(c)(ii) and 103(2)(e) such that this application for review is also taken to be an application for review of the decision made by the CEO of the Respondent on 16 May 2025 to approve the SOPS in Ms Wood’s plan. Based on Ms Wood’s oral evidence and documents comprising the May internal review request, Counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal and Ms Wood it understood that in addition to additional support worker assistance, floatation therapy and remedial massage, Ms Wood was also requesting that funding for support coordination, psychosocial coaching and lenses (for which she had previously been funded) be included in her SOPS.
The Tribunal raised with the parties that given this development, it would need to consider how to proceed; and whether the hearing should at this time continue or be adjourned.
The Respondent informed the Tribunal and Ms Wood that with respect to the lenses, there are scattered references in the material before the Tribunal to lenses from a behavioural optometrist, and that would put Ms Wood at a disadvantage in these proceedings because she does need to persuade the Tribunal there is a basis for those; and so Ms Wood may want some time to consider her position in relation to that. Having said that, the Respondent stated there is an alternative for Ms Wood, that is to make a separate request directly of the Respondent outside these proceedings under Section 48 using more recent evidence about that lens question and asking the Respondent to deal with that issue down the track when she has that more recent evidence.
The Tribunal explained to Ms Wood that what it needs to consider is whether at the time of the Tribunal’s decision the supports sought on review are reasonable and necessary and meet the legislative requirements and should be funded in her SOPS. The Tribunal also explained to Ms Wood that it needs to give each party a reasonable opportunity to present their case; and so, if these additional supports are being pressed, did she wish to proceed on the evidence before the Tribunal or did she wish to request an adjournment, so she had time to file further material.
Ms Wood explained her understanding of what the Tribunal and the Respondent had said. Her explanation reflected she understood what had been discussed. The Respondent emailed Ms Wood – who at this time was supported by Ms Cuturich – a copy of the ‘Request for a Review of a Decision’ form, and the cover letter Ms Wood had submitted with that form, that comprised the May internal review request, so she could consider and confirm whether, in addition to the support coordination, psychosocial recovery coaching and lenses identified by the Respondent, there were any other supports she is wanting to press on review. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing temporarily, to give the parties time to consider how they each wanted to proceed.
When the hearing resumed, Ms Wood and Ms Cuturich were ambiguous as to exactly what supports Ms Wood was asking the Tribunal to consider. The Tribunal explained this is a fundamental point, and the Tribunal needed to understand what the supports are that it is being asked to consider, and what the particulars of those supports are. The Tribunal also explained that it then needed to consider whether, given this was day 2 of a 2-day hearing for a 2024 application, and noting the Tribunal’s objectives, it is appropriate for it to proceed on that basis or whether it should be limiting the scope of the review pursuant to s 53 of the ART Act to the 3 supports the Tribunal understood were in issue when the hearing commenced. The Tribunal again adjourned the hearing temporarily, and informed the parties that when the hearing resumed it wanted to hear from each of the parties their view regarding the Tribunal’s suggestion it would consider limiting the scope of the review; and in the event the Tribunal did not exercise that power to limit the scope of the review, it would need to hear from Ms Wood what (if any) supports she is seeking in addition to additional support worker assistance, floatation therapy and remedial massage; and what are the particulars of those supports.
When the hearing resumed, Ms Wood informed the Tribunal and the Respondent she was happy to proceed with the restricted scope of review. The Respondent then informed the Tribunal and Ms Wood that the plan that commenced on 16 May 2025 includes 48 hours of Level 2 support coordination; and that the Respondent accepts on the evidence before the Tribunal (including the oral evidence given in these proceedings) that 80 hours of psychosocial recovery coaching meets the statutory criteria to be funded as a reasonable and necessary support in Ms Wood’s SOPS, on the basis that would be for the purposes of engaging with supports, not just coordinating supports. This was, the Respondent explained, in addition to the support coordination for which Ms Wood is already funded. With respect to the lenses, the Respondent explained why, on the evidence before the Tribunal, it did not accept they are a reasonable and necessary support. Ms Wood informed the Tribunal and the Respondent that she was happy with 48 hours of Level 2 support coordination as is already funded in her current plan, and with 80 hours of psychosocial recovery coaching which the Respondent concedes meets the statutory criteria and should be funded as a reasonable and necessary support in her SOPS; and that on review she did not press the request for lenses to be funded in her SOPS. The hearing and this application proceeded on this basis.
As noted in paragraph [15], the Applicant and the Respondent agree that 80 hours of psychosocial recovery coaching meets the statutory criteria to be funded as a reasonable and necessary support in Ms Wood’s SOPS. Having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is similarly satisfied of this.
Separate to the above issue that unfolded at the hearing, the Tribunal acknowledges that Ms Wood has raised several concerns regarding the Respondent in both written and oral evidence. As was explained to Ms Wood at the hearing, the Tribunal does not have unfettered power on review. On review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision-maker whose decision is under review and exercises the same power or powers as the primary decision-maker, subject to the same constraints.[9] The scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction therefore is determined by reference to the internal reviewer’s powers under s 100, which is in turn informed by the scope of the power under s 33(2).[10] For this reason, the Tribunal will not address the suite of concerns raised by Ms Wood regarding the Respondent and will only conduct a review of the decisions to which this review application relates.
[9] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16, [51].
[10] QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189, [7]-[8].
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Amending Act) commenced on 3 October 2024.[11] The Amending Act made a range of amendments to the NDIS Act. Those amendments included, but were not limited to, the insertion of a new definition of ‘NDIS Support’ at s 10, an amendment to s 33(5) which prescribes what is required when deciding whether to approve a SOPS, amendments to s 34 which sets out criteria which must be satisfied in relation to reasonable and necessary supports, and amendments to ss 43 and 44 regarding plan management. Those provisions, as amended, apply to the Applicant and any approval or variation of her SOPS.[12]
[11] National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Amending Act), s 2.
[12] Items 124, 129 and 132 of the Amending Act.
The objects of the NDIS Act, and the principles guiding actions under the NDIS Act, are set out in ss 3 and 4. In giving effect to the objectives of the NDIS Act, regard is to be had to the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the NDIS.[13]
[13] s 3(3)(b).
Chapter 3 of the NDIS Act provides the statutory framework for individual plans under which NDIS supports will be funded for participants.[14] Section 17A prescribes principles to which regard must be had when performing functions and exercising powers under Chapter 3 of the NDIS Act. The preparation, variation, reassessment and replacement of a participant’s plan, and the management of funding for supports under a participant’s plan, should so far as reasonably practicable be guided by principles relating to plans set out in s 31. A participant’s plan must include the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations and SOPS.[15]
[14] s 8.
[15] ss 33(1), 33(2).
In deciding whether to approve a SOPS, the CEO or the Tribunal on review, must:
(a)have regard to the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations; and
(b)have regard to relevant assessments conducted in relation to the participant; and
(c)be satisfied as mentioned in section 34 in relation to the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded and the general supports that will be provided; and
(d)apply the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules (if any) made for the purposes of section 35;
(e)have regard to the principle that a participant should manage his or her plan to the extent that he or she wishes to do so; and
(f)have regard to the operation and effectiveness of any previous plans of the participant; and
(g)have regard to whether section 46 (acquittal of NDIS amounts) was complied with in relation to any previous plan for the participant.[16]
[16] s 33(5).
Section 34(1) provides that:
For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);
a)the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations;
b)the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant’s social and economic participation;
c)the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;
d)the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
e)the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
f)the support is an NDIS support for the participant.
In addition to the matters of which the CEO, or the Tribunal on review, must be satisfied in s 34(1), the Tribunal must also be satisfied that the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered as part of a universal service obligation, or in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.[17]
[17] Transitional Miscellaneous Rules, s 7.
Relevant to this application, the Minister has made the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Supports Rules) and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Rules). These are an important part of the legislative scheme.[18]
[18] McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308, [43].
Guidelines published on the NDIS website contain information about what the Respondent considers when making decisions under the NDIS. These are essentially policy documents. The Guidelines ‘Reasonable and Necessary Supports’ (Supports Guideline) and ‘What principles do we follow to create your plan?’ (Principles Guideline) are relevant to this application. The Tribunal will take these into account unless there are cogent reasons not to.[19]
[19] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, 420.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The parties filed a joint tender bundle which included the T-Documents filed under s 37 of the AAT Act, and additional documents relied on by each of the parties. The joint tender bundle was received into evidence at the commencement of the hearing and marked ‘Exhibit 1’. During the hearing a letter dated 26 January 2022 from Dr Jack Dunphy (Dr Dunphy) was also received into evidence and marked ‘Exhibit 2’.

The hearing was conducted by Microsoft Teams on 6 and 7 August 2025. Ms Wood, Dr Dunphy, Ms Melissa Cuturich (Ms Cuturich) and Ms Fiona Curdie (Ms Curdie) gave oral evidence at the hearing.
The Respondent filed a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Respondent’s SFIC) dated 23 March 2025. Ms Wood filed a Reply to the Respondent’s SFIC dated 27 March 2025. The parties also made submissions at the hearing.
The Tribunal has considered the written evidence, oral evidence and submissions referred to in paragraphs [26] to [28]; and will refer to that below as relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the issues arising on review.
CONSIDERATION
In FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114 (FSWN) Senior Member French described the process of enquiry involved when considering whether the requirements in s 34(1) are met, after the amendment of that section by the Amending Act. That process of enquiry as described by Senior Member French in FSWN is as follows:
1. Having regard to the provisions of the principal Act as amended, the Transitional Rules, and the Supports Rules, the structure of the enquiry involved in this review involves two stages and the following steps:
Stage 1 Ascertain if the requested support is an “NDIS” Support as defined. This inquiry is focused on the support, not the participant.
Step 1: Determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table.
If the answer to that question is “yes”, then stage 1 is complete. The requested support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for inclusion in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f) (subject to a replacement support determination being made, as to which see following).
If the answer to that question is “no”, then proceed to step 2 of stage 1:
Step 2: Determine if the requested support is of a character capable of falling within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that can fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of that Table.
If the answer to that question is “no”, then the requested support will not be a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for including in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f).
If the answer to that question is “yes”, then the requested support will be a NDIS Support that is capable of being approved for inclusion in a SoPS by operation of s 34(1)(f), and stage 2 of the enquiry is reached.
Stage 2: Ascertain if the requested support satisfies each of the other criteria specified in s 34(1)(aa) to (e) and the associated Supports Rules. There is some overlap of the stage 1 and 2 enquiries. However, in my opinion stage 2 is primarily a participant focused enquiry. That is, it seeks to establish the benefit of the support to the participant. To the extent that stage 2 also requires examination of the efficacy of the support per se it adds nothing to the outcome of the stage 1 enquiry in my opinion.
1. The question of whether a requested support is, or is not, a NDIS support is a mixed question of fact and law. The issue of fact to be determined is whether the requested support falls within a category of items specified in column 1 of the Tables to Schedules 1 and 2 of the Transitional Rules. If it does, it will either be, or not be, a NDIS support by operation of law.
1. It is important to observe that in the scheme of the Transitional Rules it is not sufficient to find that a support is not excluded as a NDIS Support by operation Schedule 2. It must also be found to be included as a NDIS Support by Schedule 1. That is, both Schedules have work to do in determining what is not a NDIS Support. To illustrate this point using absurd examples, a giraffe, hot-air balloon, and space craft are not excluded as NDIS supports by Schedule 2, but they are incapable of falling into any of the categories of NDIS Supports in Schedule 1. They are therefore not NDIS Supports by operation of Schedule 1, rather than Schedule 2.
1. If a requested support is not a NDIS Support by operation of the Transitional Rules, the criteria specified by s 34(1)(f) of the principal Act as amended cannot be satisfied. Section 34(1) is conjunctive in its terms, as is indicated by use of the words ‘the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following ...’ (emphasis added). As each of the requirements of s 34(1) must be met before a support can be approved for inclusion in a SoPS there is no utility in considering if the requested support meets the other requirements of that section. The enquiry ends with the determination that the requested support is not a NDIS support.
The Tribunal agrees the process of enquiry to be followed when considering whether it is satisfied the supports sought by Ms Wood on review meet the requirements in s 34(1) is as articulated by Senior Member French in FSWN and will proceed in this way.
Support worker assistance
At the commencement of the hearing, it was understood Ms Wood was wanting 77 hours per week in total of support worker assistance funded in her SOPS. As the hearing progressed, with respect to support worker assistance, it became clear Ms Wood was not in fact seeking 77 hours per week; she does want to be funded for more than 18 hours per week (which is what is currently funded in her SOPS); however, the precise number of hours she wants per week remains unclear. Ms Wood referred to 30 hours per week of support worker assistance in closing submissions.[20]
[20] E1, 822. The Respondent confirmed in opening submissions that Ms Wood’s current plan includes funding for 18 hours of support worker assistance per week in total.
In closing submissions, the Respondent observed it is difficult to discern precisely what Ms Wood wants with respect to her request for additional support worker assistance. The Respondent contends that the 18 hours per week of support worker assistance for which Ms Wood is currently funded is reasonable and necessary, but additional hours are not.[21]
[21] Respondent’s SFIC, [37] and [50]; Respondent’s opening submissions; Respondent’s closing submissions.
There are 4 reports in evidence prepared by occupational therapists.
Ms Ellie O’Connor (Ms O’Connor) is an occupational therapist who assessed Ms Wood via video during COVID in April 2020 within the context of her access request.[22] In her report dated April 2020, Ms O’Connor assessed Ms Wood was independent with mobility, transfers, steps, and medication management; independent with difficulty with showering, dressing, grooming, toileting, feeding, grocery shopping, meal preparation/cooking, and community access; had limited independence with respect to laundry; and required full assistance with domestic cleaning.[23]
[22] E1, 38; Ms Wood’s oral evidence.
[23] E1, 42-49,
Ms O’Connor opined that due to functional limitations secondary to disability, Ms Wood will require long-term support and assistance with instrumental activities of daily living including grocery shopping, meal preparation/cooking, laundry and domestic cleaning; and with community access to attend appointments, complete personal shopping, complete self-management tasks, and engage in social and leisure activities.[24] Ms O’Connor recommended a minimum of 6 hours per week for support with instrumental activities of daily living; and a minimum of 4 hours per week for support with community access.[25] This recommendation totals a minimum of 10 hours per week of support worker assistance.
[24] E1, 54.
[25] E1, 54.
Ms O’Connor also suggested Ms Wood would benefit from the provision of occupational therapy services for the investigation/implementation of daily living aids to maximise safety and independence within home and community, such as a bath board/lift, kitchen aids, dressing aids, and bed transfer aids.[26]
[26] E1, 53.
Mr Phil Valladolid (Mr Valladolid) is an occupational therapist who assessed Ms Wood in November 2022.[27] In his report dated December 2022, Mr Valladolid assessed Ms Wood was independent with mobilising, toileting, feeding, managing her finances, transport and community access; independent with difficulty with transfers, dressing, shopping; requires supervision to shower (but is independent once in the shower); requires full assistance with cleaning; requires maximal assistance with meal preparation; and requires support to engage and feel safe when participating in social events or activities.[28]
[27] E1, 150.
[28] E1, 130-159.
Mr Valladolid recommended Ms Wood be funded for an unspecified number of hours of support worker assistance in relation to assistance with self-care (supervision for showering secondary to feeling unsafe showering alone) and household tasks (meal preparation, all cleaning tasks, laundry); assistance to access community, social and recreational activities; and group-based community, social and recreational activities.[29]
[29] E1, 156, 157, 158, 167.
Ms Sinini Mlilo (Ms Mlilo) is an occupational therapist who assessed Ms Wood in September 2023.[30] In her report dated October 2023, Ms Mlilo opined Ms Wood requires support worker assistance for meal preparation, self-care (standby assistance in the shower so she feels safe), and domestic tasks; and for accessing the community, completing grocery shopping, attending medical appointments, and attending social events.[31] Ms Mlilo recommended 7 hours per day for support with personal care routine and domestic tasks; and 4 hours per day for community access.[32] This recommendation totals 77 hours per week of support worker assistance.
[30] E1, 56.
[31] E1, 44, 45, 60, 69.
[32] E1, 87.
Ms Curdie is an occupational therapist who was engaged by the Respondent to assess Ms Wood in October 2024.[33] Ms Curdie reported she was informed by Ms Wood on the day of the assessment that she was having an ‘average day’.[34] Ms Curdie reported that Ms Wood demonstrated she is independent with most self-care tasks, most domestic tasks, and transport.[35] More specifically, Ms Curdie reported she observed Ms Wood mobilise; complete transfers (including on and off the toilet); use stairs; enter/exit her home independently; stand for periods of 5 minutes without restriction; sit without restriction; have reasonable muscle strength; partially simulate getting in and out of the bath; reach her feet to put on shoes; access the fridge and cupboards both high and low; verbalise her needs and express herself; and be attentive for the period of the assessment.[36]
[33] E1, 755.
[34] E1, 763.
[35] E1, 759-761, 764.
[36] E1, 759-762.
Ms Curdie recorded that Ms Wood reported to her that she can independently roll in bed; toilet; dress; feed herself all meals; prepare her own shakes, get her own drinks heat and prepare light meals; wash up dishes; maintain her hair, teeth and fingernails; vacuum as needed; do small loads of grocery shopping; scrub the toilet and clean the basis; transfer in and out of her car; drive to all medical appointments and within the community; use public transport; and take herself to her floatation therapy sessions.[37]
[37] E1, 759-763.
Ms Curdie opined Ms Wood requires or would benefit from support with social activities in the community; high level complex tasks (decision-making, problem solving, and emotional regulation); showering (i.e. assistance to transfer in/out of shower as the shower is over the bath, and supervision); and medium to heavy domestic tasks (including cleaning the bath, bed making, mopping and vacuuming behind large items, heavy or large loads of washing including bedsheets, heavy meal preparation, organising the house (including spring cleaning).[38]
[38] E1, 759-761, 764-765, 767, 768, 771.
Ms Curdie opined Ms Wood does not require 77 hours of support worker assistance per week; and recommended 6 hours per week for assistance with daily living; and 9 hours per week (including 3 hours on a Saturday or a Sunday) for increased social and community participation.[39] This recommendation totals 15 hours per week in total of support worker assistance.
[39] E1, 765.
Ms Curdie opined Ms Wood could be independent with showering with a further occupational therapy assessment and intervention (for example, with use of a bath board or transfers bath board and installation of a shower hose in the bathroom).[40] In oral evidence, Ms Curdie explained there are various types of bath boards, so the type of bath board that would be appropriate for Ms Wood would need to be trialled by an occupational therapist. Ms Curdie gave evidence that in her experience, a shower hose and an extra grab rail can be easily sought from and installed by the Department of Housing in NSW who own the property in which Ms Wood lives.
[40] E1, 765-766, 771.
In oral evidence, Ms Curdie explained:
·     She recommended assistance for heavier spring cleaning as with respect to decluttering Ms Wood would need both physical assistance to move larger, heavier items, and emotional support to make decisions to let go of items she has held onto for a long time.
·     Ms Wood informed her she required supervision to shower so that she felt safe; and that in her view, Ms Wood has a level of independence to be able to step in and out of a bath with a rail independently unsupervised.
·     It is her usual practise is to ask someone she is assessing whether they are having a bad, good or average day. She referred to her written notes from the assessment during the hearing and confirmed Ms Wood definitely said she was having an ‘average day’.
With respect to evidence provided by Ms O’Connor, Mr Valladolid, Ms Mlilo and Ms Curdie, the Tribunal makes the following observations and findings:
·     Reports prepared by Ms O’Connor, Mr Valladolid and Ms Mlilo are now 5 years, almost 3 years, and 2 years old respectively; and none of those occupational therapists assessed Ms Wood in her current home. Ms O’Connor was unable to assess Ms Wood in person due to COVID. Ms Curdie is the occupational therapist who has most recently assessed Ms Wood, and the only occupational therapist who assessed Ms Wood in her current home.
·     With respect to Ms Mlilo’s report, it is of significant concern to the Tribunal that her report largely records what was self-reported to her by Ms Wood; and it is unclear from her report what she observed Ms Wood do by way of task completion to objectively inform her assessment and recommendations. For this reason, the Tribunal gives Ms Mlilo’s report very limited weight.
·     Ms O’Connor, Mr Valladolid and Ms Curdie all assessed Ms Wood is independent, albeit at times with some difficulty, with a range of self-care and domestic tasks, mobilising, and transport.
·     Mr Valladolid has not recommended any specific number of support worker hours for Ms Wood. With respect to those aspects of daily life and social, economic and community participation (SECP) with which Ms O’Connor and Ms Curdie assessed Ms Wood requires assistance, Ms O’Connor recommended she be funded for a minimum of 10 hours of support worker assistance per week; whilst Mr Curdie recommended she be funded for 15 hours per week. Given the age of Ms O’Connor’s report, and the fact she did not assess Ms Wood in her current home or in person, the Tribunal prefers and gives more weight to Ms Curdie’s report and recommendation.
·     The Tribunal found Ms Curdie to be a measured and objective witness. The Tribunal is persuaded by Ms Curdie’s written and oral evidence that on the day of her assessment, Ms Wood reported to her she was having an ‘average day’ and finds accordingly.
There is evidence from a physiotherapist and Ms Wood’s general practitioner regarding Ms Wood’s need for formal support.
In November 2022, Mr Ngoc Tran (Mr Tran), a physiotherapist, reported Ms Wood requires formal support when she showers as she does not feel safe showering on her own (risk of falls); and with meal preparation due to numbness in her hands.[41] Mr Tran reported the numbness in Ms Wood’s hands affects her ability prepare food safely, minimises her fine motor skills and reduces her ability to feel the food and utensils in her hands; and she can therefore only mange simple kitchen tasks.[42]
[41] E1, 146.
[42] E1, 147.
In a report dated April 2024, Ms Wood’s treating general practitioner Dr Beatrice Dimacali (Dr Dimacali) recommended Ms Wood have a social support worker to help her on a day-to-day basis, so she does not become too socially isolated.[43]
[43] E1, 173, 561.
Mr Tran’s evidence with respect to Ms Wood’s need for support with showering and meal preparation is broadly consistent with evidence provided by the occupational therapists referred to above; as is Dr Dimacali’s evidence with respect to Ms Wood’s need for support with SECP. However, neither Mr Tran’s nor Dr Dimacali’s evidence assists the Tribunal’s consideration of how many hours of support worker assistance Ms Wood requires each week.
In a document dated 31 March 2025 prepared by Ms Cuturich, who described herself as both a support coordinator and advocate, recommended 60 to 77 hours per week of support worker assistance across personal care, domestic tasks and community access.[44] Earlier in that document, Ms Cuturich recommended Ms Wood’s core funding for daily activities be increased from $22,254.94 (3 hours per week) to approximately $56,000 for support with hygiene, domestic assistance, cooking and medication prompting; and that Ms Wood’s core funding for community access be increased from $21,023 (6 hours per week) to approximately $55,000 per week to facilitate social inclusion, mental health regulation, and fitness to drive.[45] Ms Cuturich also asserted in that document Ms Curdie’s report lacked depth, misrepresented Ms Wood’s function, and contradicted recommendations made by Ms Wood’s treating professionals.[46]
[44] E1, 507.
[45] E1, 506.
[46] E1, 505.
At the hearing, Ms Cuturich gave the following evidence:
a)    She is an advocate for women; has a diploma in finance; and holds no other qualifications.
b)    She has sporadically been engaged by Ms Wood as a paid support worker, and as a paid support coordinator.
c)    Concerns raised in her written evidence regarding Ms Curdie’s assessment and report were her own. When asked if she could be specific about her concern Ms Curdie’s report lacked depth, she commented that Ms Curdie observed Ms Wood transfer into the shower wearing shoes, but no one showers with their shoes on; and she didn’t observe how, once in the shower, Ms Wood would be able to do her daily tasks when it comes to hygiene. When asked if she could be specific about how Ms Curdie had misrepresented Ms Wood’s function, she referred to the shower example previously provided. She could not be specific with respect to what she meant regarding Ms Curdie’s report contradicting Ms Wood’s treating professionals.
Ms Cuturich was asked whether her recommendation referred to in paragraph [52] was her opinion. Ms Cuturich gave evidence that was basically taken from Ms Wood and what she requires, and that it is also a bit of a summation of all the other reports and some of the other plans Ms Wood has had. Ms Cuturich was asked whether the $56,000 for daily activities and the $55,000 for community access referred to in paragraph [52] correlate in any way to the 60 to 77 hours Ms Cuturich recommended Ms Wood be funded for; to which she confirmed there was not.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal gives Ms Cuturich’s evidence very limited weight:
·     There is no correlation between the monetary value of support worker assistance she has recommended, and the number of support worker hours she has recommended. In this way, she has made 2 conflicting recommendations with respect to the support worker assistance Ms Wood requires. She also confirmed in oral evidence the recommendation she made with respect to support worker assistance for Ms Wood was not her own opinion. In any event, the Tribunal does not consider she is not appropriately qualified to assess Ms Wood’s functional capacity or make recommendations regarding how much support worker assistance Ms Wood requires.
·     Her evidence is that she has previously been engaged by Ms Wood as a paid support worker; she has also been engaged by Ms Wood as a paid support coordinator; and she has in these proceedings been an advocate for Ms Wood. This does, to the Tribunal’s mind, raise concerns regarding the objectivity of her evidence.
·     She was unable to substantiate her concerns regarding Ms Curdie’s assessment and report during cross-examination.

Consistently across Ms Wood’s written evidence she states that 3 hours per week for assistance with daily living is insufficient;[47] and she also states she needs increased social and community supports to combat isolation and improve her emotional wellbeing.[48] In December 2024 Ms Wood indicated she had experienced a worsening of her physical and mental health which has increased her reliance on NDIS funded supports; her reduced mobility, fatigue and chronic pain mean she now requires more assistance with daily activities such as cleaning, cooking, personal care and transport; and she needs additional social and community supports to combat isolation and improve her emotional well-being.[49]
[47] E1, 126, 568, 577, 719, 723, 730, 750.
[48] E1, 713.
[49] E1, 713.
The Tribunal acknowledges that when Ms Wood applied for review in June 2024, and when all of her written statements in evidence were filed, 3 hours per week for assistance with daily life and 6 hours per week for assistance with SECP, is what was funded in her SOPS; and that totalled 9 hours of support worker assistance per week.[50] However, Ms Wood’s current plan which commenced on 16 May 2025 includes funding for 18 hours per week of support worker assistance in total.[51] Whilst those hours are nominally funded as 9 hours per week for assistance with daily living, and 9 hours per week for assistance with SECP, that funding can be used flexibly by Ms Wood which promotes her choice and control.
[50] Respondent’s SFIC, [5]; E1, 675-752.
[51] E1, 830-831; Respondent’s opening submissions; Respondent’s closing submissions.
It is unclear from Ms Wood’s written evidence why she considers the 18 hours of support worker assistance for which she is currently funded each week is insufficient to meet her need for support with daily life and SECP; how many hours she considers she needs with respect to assistance with daily life and assistance with SECP; or how she would use additional support worker hours.
Ms Wood’s oral evidence relevant to her request for additional support worker assistance was as follows:
·     She is in constant pain in addition to her peripheral neuropathy. Her capacity fluctuates.
·     She chooses not to shower at home because it is not safe; she chooses not to prepare food because it is not safe; she only eats with plastic knives and forks because it is not safe to use metal ones; and she does not feel safe to use the communal laundry available to her.
·     She has difficulty getting into the shower, as it is over a bath. The taps are difficult for her to manipulate despite the washers having been changed. There is also an issue getting the temperature of the water in the shower right.
·     She does not shower at home; and only showers at the facility she attends for floatation therapy. She showers 3 times each week at that facility. For showering, she would need the right support worker because she is not going to be naked and vulnerable if she doesn’t feel safe and comfortable; and she will need to know what the support worker is doing in her home when she showers, for example whether they are behaving in her home.
·     When asked if she had spoken with an occupational therapist about items that might help her to feel safe in the shower, like a bath transfer board or shower stool, she said she had a brief discussion with Ms Curdie. She is concerned as those kinds of things are for people who can feel, and she is worried this would be just another thing she has to navigate.
·     She uses plastic cutlery because of her peripheral neuropathy. To avoid having to cut or prepare food she buys meals she can reheat. A support worker doesn’t currently help much with meal preparation because there isn’t much to do. Having a support worker help more with meal preparation than they do now is something she would entertain.
·     With peripheral neuropathy, she doesn’t have sensitivity to hot and cold; this is a problem with cooking as she can’t appreciate and distinguish temperature to keep herself safe; she could burn herself. She can’t feel a sharp knife; she could cut herself and wouldn’t know.
·     She wears clothes without zippers and buttons so she can dress herself.
·     She likes to keep things regular. She attends floatation therapy 3 times a week; an osteopath, physiotherapist, homeopath and podiatrist once a month; has appointments with her general practitioner roughly once every 8 weeks; and has specialist appointments.
·     She currently uses the 18 hours per week of support worker assistance for which she is funded for assistance with housework, washing, food preparation, grocery shopping, and attending appointments with her if necessary. Whether support workers attend appointments with her depends on whether she feels confident and comfortable to drive herself or not.
·     She usually has a support worker attend on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. They usually attend for 4 to 5 hours, depending on what needs to be done, and what Ms Wood needs to do.
·     She is not asking for 77 hours of support worker assistance; she is at the Tribunal because the 18 hours she has is not enough. A conservative estimate of what she thinks should be funded is 30 hours.
·     When asked what the 18 hours of support worker assistance she is funded for does not cover or allow her to do, or where she finds gaps in her current support worker hours, Ms Wood gave evidence she just makes do with what she has.
·     When asked how she would use additional support worker hours, Ms Wood said ‘well, I would do more’. Ms Wood elaborated that she would like to attend more social events and might be able to join a group; she has difficulty maintaining relationships and being in a group; and sometimes just having a support worker with her diffuses the situation, helps her understand things, and to stay calm.
·     With respect to Ms McCurdie’s recommendations, she agreed she would be assisted by 30 minutes assistance a week with mopping and vacuuming behind large items; 15 minutes a week cleaning the bathroom; and 15 minutes twice a week for heavy and bigger loads of washing. Ms Wood then clarified she only needs assistance to do washing once a week; and confirmed 3 hours per week for assistance with problem solving and decision making would be sufficient.
It is not in contest between the parties; and the Tribunal is similarly satisfied on the evidence referred to above from the Ms O’Connor, Mr Valladolid, Ms Curdie, Mr Tran, Dr Dimacali and Ms Wood; that Ms Wood does require support worker assistance in relation to daily life and SECP. The Respondent does not contend, and nor on the material before it does the Tribunal consider, that her current funding for support worker assistance should be reduced at this point in time.
However, it remained unclear to the Tribunal, despite Ms Wood’s oral evidence, why she maintains the 18 hours of support worker assistance for which she is currently funded in her SOPS with respect to assistance with daily life and assistance with SECP is insufficient; the number of additional hours she feels she needs for assistance with daily life and SECP; or how she proposes to use additional support worker hours if they are funded in her SOPS.
The Tribunal was not persuaded by Ms Wood’s evidence that the 18 hours of support worker assistance for which she is currently funded is not in fact meeting her need for assistance with daily life and SECP; and considers increasing her support worker assistance in those circumstances may undermine rather than promote her independence.
In the circumstances outlined in paragraph [62], together with the fact Ms Wood is currently funded for more support worker assistance each week than has been recommended by Ms Curdie, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any increase over and above the 18 hours per week of support worker assistance for which she is currently funded will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for Ms Wood, having regard to current good practice. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied Ms Wood’s request for additional support worker assistance meets the requirement in s 34(1)(d).
In the circumstances outlined in paragraph [62], and noting Ms Wood is currently funded for more support worker assistance than has been recommended by Ms Curdie, the Tribunal does not consider that funding additional support worker assistance is likely to reduce the cost of funding of supports for Ms Wood in the long-term; will substantially improve or be of long-term benefit to, Ms Wood; or will increase Ms Wood’s independence and reduce her need for other kinds of supports. Further, in circumstances where the Tribunal has not been persuaded on the evidence before it that increased support worker assistance is required by, or would likely be effective and beneficial for Ms Wood, the Tribunal considers her current funding for 18 hours per week is a comparable support which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any increase over and above the 18 hours per week of support worker assistance for which Ms Wood is currently funded represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits to be achieved and the cost of alternative support. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied Ms Wood’s request for additional support worker assistance meets the requirement in s 34(1)(c).
In circumstance where additional support worker assistance does not meet the requirements in ss 34(1)(c) or 34(1)(d), it is not a reasonable and necessary support and cannot be funded in Ms Wood’s SOPS.
In closing, relevant to support worker assistance, the Tribunal notes that both Ms O’Connor and Ms Curdie have recommended an assessment by an occupational therapist regarding assistive technology such as a bath board, which they opine may support Ms Wood to be independent with showering. Ms Wood is currently funded for support for an occupational therapist to assess assistive technology low risk and provide safety strategies to increase everyday showering at home.[52] In all those circumstances it is foreseeable Ms Wood’s need for support worker assistance with showering will be carefully considered for the purposes of her next NDIS plan.
[52] E1, 832.
Floatation therapy
Ms Wood is seeking to have floatation therapy funded in her SOPS. Ms Wood attends floatation therapy 3 times a week.[53] She gave evidence and has reported to her treating practitioners that she derives several benefits from this support, which was previously funded in her SOPS.[54]
[53] E1, 147, 155, 507, 757; Ms Wood’s oral evidence.
[54] E1, 20, 21, 22, 121-122, 155, 165-166, 190, 507, 551, 742; Ms Wood’s oral evidence.
The Respondent contends that floatation therapy is complementary medicine under item 9(k) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional rules, and therefore not an NDIS support; and that use of the term ‘therapy’ in the name of the support does not mean it is therapy for the purposes of the NDIS Act.[55] The Respondent further submits there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that floatation therapy is a ‘therapy’ for the purposes of the NDIS Act and how it is designed to provide therapeutic support as opposed to short term subjective benefits such as mindfulness and pain relief.[56]
[55] Respondent’s SFIC, [60]; Respondent’s opening submissions; Respondent’s closing submissions.
[56] Respondent’s SFIC, [61]
Ms Wood has filed several articles in support of the efficacy of floatation therapy. Relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of whether floatation therapy is a support listed in Schedule 2 of the Transitional rules:
a)In an article published in 2005 regarding a study that investigated the value of flotation Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy (REST) as a stress-management tool, floatation-REST is described as a ‘less familiar relaxation technique’; and it is reported that the findings of the study suggest floatation-REST might be a valuable alternative to other stress-management techniques.[57]
b)In an article published in 2016 regarding a study that evaluated floatation-REST as an intervention for self-diagnosed GAD, floatation-REST was described as a complementary and alternative medicine, and it was reported the findings of that study suggest that floatation-REST has potential as a complementary treatment modality alongside existing treatment protocols for GAD.[58]
c)In an article published in 2018 regarding a study that examined whether floatation-REST would reduce symptoms of anxiety, stress and depression in a clinical sample, it was reported that floatation-REST may offer an attractive alternative option that enhances self-efficacy and improves treatment utilisation by providing anxious patients with opportunities to learn new ways of coping with distress on their own.[59]
d)In an article published in 2020 regarding a systematic review that investigated the efficacy of floatation-REST on sleep in clinical and non-clinical samples, it was reported some therapies described within alternative and complementary medicine are advertised as sleep promoting, including floatation-REST; and that whilst there had been a surge in the study of complementary and alternative medicines for insomnia during recent decades, there is little knowledge of the effects of floatation-REST.[60]
e)In an article published in 2021 regarding a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial of floatation-REST, floatation-REST was described as ‘an emerging therapeutic intervention’; and it was reported that despite the variety of therapeutic options for chronic-pain many patients are unsatisfied with their treatment, demonstrating a need for treatment alternatives.[61]
[57] E1, 658-667.
[58] E1, 653-657.
[59] E1, 646-652.
[60] A Kjellgrena, A Norell-Clarke, K Jonssona and M Tillforsa, ‘Does floatation-rest (restricted environmental stimulation technique) have an effect on sleep?’, European Journal of Integrative Medicine 33, 2020 filed by Ms Wood on 9 August 2025.
[61] E1, 658-667.
On 9 August 2025, Ms Wood also filed a print-out of a page titled ‘Funding Schemes’ from the Float Therapy Association Australia and New Zealand website. On that page it is stated that float therapy ‘is complementary to other allied health therapies, including hydrotherapy, chiropractic care, physiotherapy, osteopathy, and massage therapy’.
In oral evidence, Ms Curdie opined that floatation therapy does not fall under what is called the medical model, it falls under alternate health; she described it as alternative medicine.
Based on the evidence referred to in paragraphs [69] to [71] the Tribunal finds that floatation therapy is an alternative or complementary medicine. As floatation therapy is an alternative or complementary medicine, and alternative or complementary medicine is listed in item 9(k) in Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules, floatation therapy is not an NDIS support. In circumstances where floatation therapy is not an NDIS support the requirement in s 34(1)(f) is not met. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the floatation therapy sought on review meets the requirements in s 34(1) and it cannot be funded as a reasonable and necessary support in Ms Wood’s SOPS.
Remedial massage
Ms Wood is seeking to have remedial massage that is to be provided by Dr Jinwook ‘Matt’ Kim (Dr Kim) funded in her SOPS.
The Respondent accepts that some forms of massage may be an NDIS support, but contend this is when it is provided by an allied health practitioner who provides massage as a part of ongoing evidence-based therapy of a participant under item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.[62] The Respondent submits the evidence does not establish that the remedial massage sought on review is to be delivered by someone who is relevantly qualified for it to constitute a support that can be funded under the NDIS.[63] The Respondent further submits that funding the requested remedial massage would not be value for money for the purposes of s 34(1)(c); and that to the extent that remedial massage may be related to Ms Wood’s disability, it is a duplication of existing supports under r 5.1(c) of the Supports Rules.[64]
[62] Respondent’s SFIC, [68].
[63] Respondent’s opening submissions; Respondent’s closing submissions.
[64] Respondent’s SFIC, [74]-[77]; Respondent’s closing submissions.
Ms Wood’s evidence and submissions with respect to remedial massage are as follows:
·     Remedial massage is directly related to her disabilities, supports her functional independence, and reduces her need for more expensive interventions.[65]
·     Remedial massage helps her fatigue and to regulate her nervous system; it reduces her physical tension, pain, stress, anxiety and sensory sensitivity; and this promotes her ability to engage in daily and community activities.[66]
·     Remedial massage compensates for insufficient assistance with daily living support in her current plan.[67] It has assisted her to maintain mobility to safely access the community.[68]
·     The effectiveness of remedial massage for her can be evaluated using measurable outcomes, such as reduced pain levels, improved mobility and flexibility, stabilisation of cognitive function, improved sleep quality, and maintenance of independence.[69]
·     She only sees a qualified remedial massage therapist which ensures the therapy is targeted and clinically appropriate. Dr Kim is registered with AHPRA for another modality, maybe as an acupuncturist or as a Chinese medicine practitioner.[70] She had 1 remedial massage at Balmain Sports Medicine (BSM); she can’t recall the massage therapist’s name; she did not like her or the massage.[71]
·     In January 2025, she emailed BSM where she receives physiotherapy, exercise physiology and podiatry to query whether BSM had a remedial massage practitioner that is AHPRA registered.[72] BSM subsequently confirmed their massage therapists are not AHPRA registered.[73] In written and oral evidence, Ms Wood submitted that no remedial massage therapist will be AHPRA registered as APHRA does not cover remedial massage.[74]
·     In evidence is a brochure regarding the Home Care Package (HCP) program that outlines Inclusion and Exclusion Framework for that program.[75] Within that framework, remedial massage can be covered under the HCP program when the service is required due to ageing related functional decline and/or the individual cannot access disability supports, delivered by an accredited provider, and not currently being funded by another government program.[76] The Tribunal understood Ms Wood’s contention in written and oral evidence to be that inclusion of remedial massage in the Commonwealth’s HCP program supports it being an NDIS support that can be funded in her SOPS. The Tribunal considers this submission is misconceived, as the test as to whether a support is an NDIS support is prescribed by the NDIS Act and rules made under that.
[65] E1, 20, 720, 721.
[66] E1, 20, 21, 719, 720.
[67] E1, 722, 730.
[68] E1, 741.
[69] E1, 721.
[70] Ms Wood’s oral evidence.
[71] Ms Wood’s oral evidence.
[72] E1, 630.
[73] E1, 633; Ms Wood’s oral evidence.
[74] E1, 732.
[75] E1, 582.
[76] E1, 592; 741.
In April 2024, Dr Dimacali reported Ms Wood gets upper back muscle tension and stiffness when anxious and hypervigilant; and she finds improvement of these symptoms when undergoing massage therapy.[77] Dr Dimacali stated she hopes this is considered as part of core therapy.[78]
[77] E1, 561.
[78] E1, 561.
In January 2025, Ms Alina Puang (Ms Puang), an APA musculoskeletal physiotherapist, wrote a letter in support of Ms Wood receiving ongoing remedial massage as part of her treatment regime.[79] Ms Puang reported:
‘Wendy has been making some fantastic gains with her progress to becoming mobile and active, but as she is on the new path of movement and mobility, due to her various issues that contribute to her chronic pain, movement can stir up and cause potentially other areas of concern, which are being directly addressed with remedial massage.
Wendy also has quite good support and trust in her remedial therapist that it would be detrimental to her progress if this was to be ceased. Currently, as her physiotherapist, I am monitoring Wendy’s exercise program and protocols, prescribing self-management strategies but at this stage of her rehab, needs some more input to keep her in that positive mental and physical space for ongoing mobility.’[80]
[79] E1, 629.
[80] E1, 629.

In a letter dated February 2025, Dr Kim reported:
a)    He had been working with Ms Wood for 2 months in his role as a remedial massage therapist and acupuncturist for remedial massage treatments.[81]
b)    Ms Wood receives remedial massage support for 1.5 hours once or twice a week; and that visual analogue scale (VAS) will be the main method to follow up the improvement and changes of her pain level on her hip and shoulders.[82]
c)    Ms Wood’s physiotherapist has agreed to monitor her improvements from massages and exercises.[83]
d)    Ms Wood has chronic shoulder-neck and lower back-hip pain, that limit her mobility and ability to have physical activities. Her shoulder-neck pain and limited of range of motion has been improved through remedial massage. Her lower back, hip and lower body muscle pain needs longer time with remedial massage to work on her soft tissue.[84]
e)    Ms Wood has experienced improvements over the past 2 months with remedial massage in her neck and shoulder pain, particularly in the tightness when turning her neck; and she has noticed a particular reduction in her shoulder pain.[85] However, her lower back and hip pain require ongoing treatment for long-term relief.[86]
f)     Remedial massage helps address key soft tissue issues in conjunction with other treatments she is receiving. Regular sessions can improve her blood circulation, enhance her range of motion, and prevent further deterioration. Additionally, the pain relief and relaxation provided by massage contribute positively to her mental well-being.[87]
[81] E1, 634.
[82] E1, 634.
[83] E1, 634.
[84] E1, 635.
[85] E1, 635,
[86] E1, 635.
[87] E1, 635.
Ms Curdie recommended remedial massage once a month.[88] Ms Curdie opined this provides pain relief, reduction in inflammation and improved circulation which benefit neuropathy and Stills Disease.[89] At the hearing, when asked what was the particular basis for recommending remedial massage once a month, Ms Curdie gave oral evidence Ms Wood is getting great benefit from remedial massage; so if that is a mechanism that is giving Ms Wood relief and allows independence then she thinks that is positive. Ms Curdie added that in her experience remedial massage is beneficial for peripheral neuropathy and to relieve tension arising from physical ailments and psychological illness.
[88] E1, 765.
[89] E1, 766.
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the remedial massage requested by Ms Wood is an NDIS support.
Item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules provides that massage that is not provided by an allied health professional for disability related purposes is not an NDIS support. Therefore, if massage is provided by an allied health professional for disability related purposes, it could be an NDIS Support.
In determining whether massage provided as part of ongoing therapeutic support is provided by an ‘allied health professional’ for ‘disability related purposes’, the Respondent submits that the practitioner must be AHPRA qualified in the discipline/service they are providing for the purpose of NDIS supports;[90] and the goal of the massage must be to maintain or improve functioning in the long-term, as opposed to treating symptoms such as stress or pain once they occur (which would be akin to treatment).[91] To the Tribunal’s mind, this submission conflates item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules and item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.
[90] Respondent’s SFIC, [70].
[91] Respondent’s SFIC, [71].
The Tribunal does not consider that for the purposes of item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules, the descriptor ‘allied health professional’ would only include an AHPRA registered allied health professional. To qualify the descriptor in that way goes further than the language employed by Parliament. As such, the Tribunal does not consider that massage provided by an allied health professional that is not AHPRA registered is by virtue of item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules not an NDIS support. Of course, massage provided by an allied health professional that is not AHPRA registered would still need to be for ‘disability related purposes’ for it to not be an NDIS support pursuant to item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the NDIS Act.
Ms Wood is seeking funding to have remedial massage provided by Dr Kim. In the letter referred to in paragraph [78], Dr Kim describes himself as a remedial massage therapist and an acupuncturist. Dr Kim is registered with AHPRA as a Chinese Medicine Practitioner within the division of acupuncture (Registration Number CMR0002769353). As a qualified acupuncturist, the Tribunal accepts Dr Kim is an ‘allied health professional’ for the purposes of item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules. Whilst acupuncture would be captured by item 9(k) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules, as it is alternative or complementary medicine; the Tribunal understands Ms Wood’s and Dr Kim’s evidence to be that Dr Kim is providing Ms Wood remedial massage, not acupuncture.
A question arising is whether the remedial massage Dr Kim provides Ms Wood is for disability related purposes. If it is not for disability related purposes, then it is not an NDIS support by operation of s 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules. Dr Kim’s, Ms Puang’s and Ms Curdie’s evidence is to the effect that remedial massage is for Ms Wood’s pain; and Dr Dimacali’s evidence is to the effect that remedial massage is for muscle tension and stiffness associated with Ms Wood’s psychosocial impairments. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal broadly accepts the remedial massage provided by Dr Kim, as sought by Ms Wood on review, is for disability related purposes.
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds the remedial massage sought on review by Ms Wood is massage provided by an allied health professional for disability related purposes. It therefore does not fall within item 10(a) of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules. Of course, this does not mean the remedial massage sought on review by Ms Wood is an NDIS support; rather, it means that could be an NDIS support if it falls within item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.
Item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules provides that supports that provide evidence-based therapy to help participants improve or maintain their functional capacity in areas such as language and communication, personal care, mobility and movement, interpersonal interactions, functioning (including psychosocial functioning) and community living, are an NDIS support.
The Tribunal broadly agrees with the Respondent’s submission that for remedial massage to fall within item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules, the goal of that support must be to maintain and improve functioning in the long-term.
The Tribunal accepts Ms Wood considers remedial massage a vital component of her supports program; and that she feels she benefits greatly from it.
The Tribunal acknowledges Dr Dimacali’s, Ms Puang’s, Ms Curdie’s and Dr Kim’s recommendations with respect to remedial massage as outlined above.
With respect to Dr Dimacali’s recommendation, her opinion appears to be based solely on Ms Wood’s self-reporting that she finds remedial massage improves muscle tension and stiffness. Dr Dimacali does not offer an objective clinical explanation for why she hopes this is considered as part of Ms Wood’s therapy; and nor does she opine in relation to whether any benefit Ms Wood will obtain from remedial massage will maintain or improve Ms Wood’s functional capacity.
Similarly, Ms Curdie’s oral evidence was to the effect that she recommended remedial massage for Ms Wood because she is getting benefit from it; which appears to have been predominantly informed by Ms Wood’s self-reporting. Ms Curdie did state that in her experience remedial massage is beneficial for peripheral neuropathy and to relieve tension arising from physical ailments and psychological illness; however, it is unclear from this whether Ms Curdie mean ‘beneficial’ in a way that would maintain or improve Ms Wood’s functional capacity; and if so, on what basis she holds that opinion.
Ms Curdie’s evidence is that remedial massage provides pain relief, reduction in inflammation and improved circulation. Dr Kim’s evidence is that regular remedial massage can improve blood circulation and range of motion, prevent further deterioration, and provide pain relief and relaxation. Whilst the Tribunal broadly accepts such benefits may be obtained from remedial massage, neither Ms Curdie’s or Dr Kim’s evidence explains how any of these benefits would in fact maintain or improve Ms Wood’s functional capacity, as opposed to simply treating her symptomology and promoting her general well-being.
Dr Kim is an acupuncturist and a remedial massage therapist. The Tribunal does not accept that an acupuncturist is appropriately qualified to provide remedial massage within the meaning of item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules. Remedial massage is, in short, outside the expertise of an acupuncturist. The Tribunal is not persuaded that a remedial massage therapist is appropriately qualified to provide remedial massage other than as treatment which may provide short-term symptomatic relief; and as such finds that a remedial massage therapist is not appropriately qualified to provide evidence-based therapy to help improve or maintain a person’s functional capacity within the meaning of item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the remedial massage sought by Ms Wood on review falls within item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules. It follows that the remedial massage sought by Ms Wood is not an NDIS support; and the requirement in s 34(1)(f) is not met. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the remedial massage sought on review by Ms Wood meets the requirements in s 34(1) and it cannot be funded as a reasonable and necessary support in Ms Wood’s SOPS.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review dated 19 June 2024 and 16 May 2025 and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:
1.    The statement of participant supports specifies the reasonable and necessary supports include:
a)80 hours of Psychosocial Recovery Coach supports.
2.    All other supports in the Applicant’s existing statement of participant supports are to be replicated pro-rata from the date on which the supports specified in paragraph [1] above are included in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports.
3.    The management of funding for reasonable and necessary supports in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports is to remain the same as the management of funding for those supports in the Applicant’s existing statement of participant supports.

4. The date by which the Respondent must reassess the Applicant’s plan is to be 12 months after the date on which the supports in paragraph [1] above are included in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports.

[2025] ARTA 2151

3 October 2025

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Reasonable and Necessary Supports

Judicial Review

Remedial Massage