The NDIA did not approve the Applicant’s request to increase their Capacity Building Supports funding. The Tribunal had to determine whether the requested supports were reasonable and necessary under the NDIS Act.
The Tribunal needed to decide if an NDIS service provider could appear as an applicant.
The Tribunal also had to decide whether it had the power to review a decision by the NDIA to refuse a claim for payment.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the presiding member should recuse herself due to a claim by the applicant’s mother that the member was biased.
This applicant’s sister advised the NDIA that the applicant was now residing in a residential aged care facility. Read on to find out if the AAT was satisfied that she still met the criteria to be an NDIS participant.
The Tribunal considers if it has the jurisdiction to review this NDIS decision and whether or not the statement of participant supports was appropriate.
What type of questions should the NDIA ask an applicant’s healthcare providers? The AAT takes a position.
In this decision, the AAT evaluates whether an applicant’s numerous health conditions are permanent or not.
The AAT had to decide in the interim whether a father should continue representing his adult son in an NDIS matter.
The National Disability Insurance Agency did not provide for access to the applicant’s preferred interstate prosthetist in his funding plan. He applied to the AAT for a review of an internal NDIS decision to confirm the approval of its initial decision.
The applicant was the mother of a child participating in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). She had applied to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NIDA) for sole parental responsibility for the purposes of the NDIS. The NIDA declined this request.
She applied to the AAT for a review of that decision.
The father acknowledged he had no contact with the child since July 2018. The AAT was not satisfied the parents were able to work together in the best interests of the child.
The Tribunal set aside the decision, giving the Applicant, for the purposes of the NDIS, sole parental responsibility.
In order to receive funding from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), an applicant must demonstrate how they meet the “access criteria”. These criteria are designed to impose a number of thresholds on access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). When considering the other access criteria, the AAT found the applicant’s psychological condition did not have a substantial impact on his functional capacity. He still maintained a circle of family friends and attended church and the gym. The AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant access to the NDIS.
The applicant suffers from hearing loss and made a request to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) for funding for high level technology hearing aids. The AAT was asked to review the NDIA’s decision to refuse the application. The AAT was satisfied that the hearing aids were the minimum necessary support required for the applicant. The AAT substituted the decision and directed the NDIA to include a pair of the requested hearing aids as reasonable and necessary support. The hearing aids were ordered to be funded under NDIS.
In this matter, the NDIS decided the applicant did not meet the requirements for access to the NDIS. On review before the AAT, the main issue was about the requirement that the applicant's impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent, within the meaning of the rules of the NDIS.
This review was about an NDIA decision refusing the applicant’s request for additional supports in their existing NDIS plan. The issue in this matter was about the requirement that additional supports are 'reasonable and necessary'.
The main issue in this review was about the criteria for access to the NDIS, particularly the ‘disability requirements’ and the ‘early intervention requirements.
The applicant, a participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, requested additional supports in her plan. The requested supports included a sport physiologist’s attendance at gym sessions and tennis coaching. The AAT affirmed the NDIA’s decision to refuse the additional supports.
NDIA refused the applicant's request for funding for a private motor vehicle in his NDIS plan. The AAT affirmed the decision.
The applicant requested access to the NDIS for a number of conditions. The NDIA found that the applicant did not meet all of the relevant criteria for access to the NDIS, and decided not to grant access to the scheme. The AAT affirmed the NDIA’s decision.
The applicant sought additional funding under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for personal care support 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Tribunal considered the amount of support that was reasonable to be provided by the family and varied the decision.
The applicant, a girl aged 11 who suffered from blindness, epilepsy and cognitive impairments, requested further variations to her participant plan under the National Disability Insurance Scheme to provide funding for additional supports. The Tribunal varied her plan providing additional supports.