1. The report of Hannah Lewis, Occupational Therapist, dated 5 August 2025 was written following a desktop review of evidence and an in-person assessment with the Applicant, which was conducted on 22 July 2025 within her home. The assessment lasted approximately 2 hours and included an interview, a review of the home environment, and observations of the Applicant's functional abilities as well as a WHODAS assessment.[16]
2. Ms Lewis provided an overview of her observations of the Applicant during her assessment.
3. Ms Lewis shared considerable detail of the value of the WHODAS assessment and her recommendations for the Applicant.
4. She reported on the Applicant's preferences in terms of her personal grooming, self-care and self-management, socialisation and connections to the community.

Professor Dennis Velakoulis (Neuropsychiatrist)

1. Professor Velakoulis submitted an independent medical report dated 13 July 2025.[17]
2. His testimony primarily focused on the positive and negatives aspects of schizophrenia, as well as the Applicant's presentation at their meeting.
3. The Tribunal notes that the expert witnesses and Respondent relied in their written and oral evidence, upon letters by Dr Kimberly Fayman, dated 11 October 2024 and 29 November 2024 and her response to targeted questions dated 27 August 2025[18] and a letter from Dr Robyn Green, dated 9 June 2021[19].

SECTION 24 (1) (A) IMPAIRMENTS

1. Under 24(1) of the NDIS Act a person meets the disability requirements if:

the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable

1. The Respondent accepted and the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder, being psychosocial impairments, resulting in impaired cognition through impaired concentration, impaired mood and emotional regulation, and impaired motivation and energy attributable to depression.[20]
2. In his testimony, Professor Velakoulis confirmed his finding that the Applicant has had schizophrenia over several decades. He distinguished between schizophrenia and schizophreniform, explaining that early schizophrenia is diagnosed as schizophreniform and if it lasts at least 6 months it then becomes a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He confirmed that schizophrenia was the correct diagnosis given its duration. [21]
3. Professor Velakoulis did not confirm any other diagnosis. He acknowledged the Applicant was treated with antidepressants but was not aware of any diagnosis of any depression, nor did she present as someone with depression at the time he met her. He stated that the Applicant has never reportedly had protracted symptoms of depression such as depressive mood, loss of weight, poor appetite, suicidal ideation. He was not aware of any symptoms suggestive of a hypomanic or manic episode. He acknowledged that a medical practitioner may have considered she had depression but did not have that information available to him.[22]
4. His oral evidence offered insights into the expected impairments of a person who has schizophrenia, including delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech, emotional dysregulation, thought broadcasting, thought withdrawal, thought insertion or fixed false beliefs that cannot be shaken. He further explained the nature of the impairments associated with schizophrenia:

...being positive and negative in nature. Positive impairments include inability to focus, concentrate, cognitive fog, impairments to working memory, impairment to manipulate information, impairments in social functioning, and inability to socialise because paranoid or delusional beliefs and retreat from the world if they are feeling paranoid. On occasions he reported, they may respond to those psychotic beliefs or thoughts and confront or at the other extreme and be aggressive and hurt the person.[23]

5. He also explained that schizophrenia is not just the positive aspects of experiencing an episode:

what is more impairing are the negative symptoms, in contrast to the positive. Negative symptoms are the absence of things - have impairments in socialisation, and emotional reactivity, and their ability to communicate and social isolation and withdrawal - they are permanent - they don't wax and wane like hallucinations - this often causes more impairment.[24]

6. He reported that there can be an overlap with depression in that the negative impairments are also symptoms of depression stating:

The way one differentiates is that symptoms of depression include - sadness, tearfulness, loss of appetite, pessimistic thoughts, lack of sleep. It is a common co-morbidity - schizophrenia - causes impairments to transmitters and chemicals, and impairments relating to lack of communication, paranoid thoughts could lead to depression along these lines. [25]

7. The Tribunal accepts Professor Velakoulis's confirmation of the diagnosis and its psychosocial impairments generally and as they relate to the Applicant.
8. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a disability attributable to a psychosocial impairment from schizophrenia and depression. Accordingly, paragraph 24(1)(a) is satisfied.

1. Dr Kimberly Fayman, in her response to targeted questions[26] confirmed the diagnosis of osteoarthritis in the Applicant's knees, diagnosed in 2007. The Respondent conceded and and Tribunal accepts that the Applicant had the physical impairments of Osteoarthritis, [27] resulting in impaired musculoskeletal structure, impaired mobility, impaired exercise tolerance and reduced endurance, impaired range of motion and impaired muscle strength from disuse and altered biomechanics.[28]
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has a disability due to physical impairments arising from osteoarthritis, and that accordingly section 24(1)(a) is satisfied.

1. The Applicant also identified other physical impairments as part of this review application to be considered under section 24(1)(a).

1. The Respondent and the Tribunal accept the diagnoses of Glaucoma on the basis of evidence reported in Dr Fayman's letter dated 11 October 2024[29]. There was no additional medical evidence in support of this diagnosis.
2. During her oral testimony, the Applicant stated that she had she has loss of vision in her right eye, controlled by Latanoprost medical eye drops. She wears glasses for reading. She has retained her driver's licence without special conditions. When driving, the Applicant stated that wearing sunglasses "drops the glare" and she drives slowly. [30]
3. Whilst the Respondent and Tribunal acknowledge that this causes some inconvenience to the Applicant, there is insufficient functional evidence connecting glaucoma to loss, reduction or restriction in physical functioning to constitute a physical impairment.
4. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the applicant has a disability attributable to physical impairment resulting from of glaucoma and section 24(1)(a) is not satisfied.

1. There was no medical evidence submitted by the Applicant in relation to a chronic cough and runny nose. The Applicant suggested that these were hereditary medical conditions. She stated in her evidence that she has a chronic tickle in her throat and constantly dripping nose. She stated that she can't have too much salty food as a result, and that it prevents her from socialising and interacting and socialising at work, particularly when she is on the phone.[31]
2. The Respondent contended and the Tribunal agrees that whilst this causes some inconvenience to the Applicant, there is insufficient medical or functional evidence connecting a cough and runny nose to loss, reduction or restriction in physical functioning to constitute a physical impairment.
3. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the Applicant has a disability attributable to physical impairment resulting from a cough or runny nose and finds that section 24(1)(a) is not satisfied.

1. The diagnosis of diabetes was established by the medical evidence and is accepted by the Respondent and the Tribunal.
2. However, the Applicant's own evidence was that that her diabetes was well controlled using medication and her treatment regime. The Applicant in her oral evidence shared that she takes injections for diabetes, one in the morning and one at night as well as pills. She described how when she gets low in sugar she gets:

dizzy and might feel faint, I need to take some sugar and have a coffee and wait an hour. It comes on without notice. I have to sit there with my hands over my face and wait to go away. [32]

3. Whilst this Tribunal acknowledges that causes some distress to the Applicant, there is insufficient functional evidence connecting diabetes to a loss, reduction or restriction in physical functioning to constitute a physical impairment.
4. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the applicant has a disability attributable to physical impairment resulting from diabetes. Accordingly, section 24(1)(a) is not satisfied.

1. In relation to urinary incontinence, the Applicant explained that she often doesn't make it to the bathroom at night to urinate and has to wear inconsistence pads.[33]
2. The Respondent and Tribunal accepts that urinary incontinence causes the Applicant discomfort, affects her sleep schedule, her quality of life and is an unpleasant condition to deal with.
3. However, the Tribunal finds that there is insufficient medical evidence to suggest the cause of urinary incontinence, or whether it is a treatable consequence of another medical condition, including diabetes, or whether it is a natural occurrence as a result of the age of the Applicant.
4. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the applicant has a disability attributable to physical impairment resulting from urinary incontinence and as a result finds that section 24(1)(a) is not satisfied.

1. The Applicant stated in her oral evidence that she feels permanently tired:

I've always been tired. I've always been like that. Lack of energy. Like my aunt in Queensland. [34]

2. The Tribunal acknowledges that oversleeping may be a result of either or both her accepted psychosocial and physical impairments.
3. The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to suggest whether oversleeping is a treatable consequence of another medical condition. In her letter of 9 June 2021 Dr Robyn Green writes:

Janet has also been diagnosed with obesity which started about 30 years ago after she was hospitalised... she has managed to lose some weight but at 124 kg it is still a problem. It causes her to feel chronically tired....[35]

4. The Tribunal finds there is insufficient medical and functional evidence connecting oversleeping to a loss, reduction or restriction in physical functioning to constitute a physical impairment.
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the applicant has a disability attributable to physical impairment resulting from oversleeping. As a result, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a physical impairment of oversleeping is established under s24(1)(a).

1. In summary, the Tribunal finds that there is a disability resulting from:

(a) A psychosocial impairment due to schizophrenia, and depression to the extent that the impairments manifest in the same manner as those resulting from schizophrenia > > (b) A physical impairment due to osteoarthritis

2. The Tribunal finds that the additional conditions of glaucoma, diabetes, cough and runny nose, incontinence, and oversleeping do not meet the criteria for access under s24(1)(a). As a result, the Tribunal finds that there is no further consideration of them required. The Tribunal therefore limits further considerations in this matter to the psychosocial impairments and physical impairments related to osteoarthritis.

1. An impairment must be found to be permanent under section 24(1)(b) to meet the access criteria.
2. The Tribunal must therefore be satisfied that there are no known, available and appropriate evidence‑based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment.

1. The Respondent concedes and the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's psychosocial impairments attributable to both Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder are, or are likely to be, permanent within the meaning of s 24(1)(b).
2. There is no curative treatment for Schizophrenia, and Professor Velakoulis's testimony clearly outlines the overlap between the manifestations of depression and schizophrenia.
3. The Tribunal accepts evidence that the Applicant has a couple of episodes of schizophrenia a year each lasting between 2-3 weeks.
4. A fluctuating impairment meets the criteria of permanent according to rule 5.5 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 [36].
5. In relation to permanence of the Applicant's psychosocial impairments, Dr Kimberly Fayman' states:

7) Given Janet's age and response to treatment thus far, it is my expectation that Janet's impairments secondary to Schizophreniform Disorder, Major Depression and Osteoarthritis will continue indefinitely. Improvement in her level of impairment is not anticipated. [37]

ii) Janet's Schizophreniform Disorder has been stable on risperidone 1mg on alternate nights since 2007. For mood support, Janet takes sertraline 25mg also alternate daily. Janet has been on both of these medicines since at least 2002.... No other psychiatric medicine has been prescribed in this time. > > iii) I do not believe that Janet currently requires the support of either a psychiatrist or psychologist as her condition is stable and has been for many years. I feel, therefore, that there would be little benefit to be gained. This is regularly reviewed and extra support would be readily sought should the need ever arise. > > iv) I have not prepared a Mental Health Treatment Plan (MHTP) for Janet. This is not because a mental illness is not present, but because a MHTP is most useful for unlocking a Medicare rebate for psychology services, and this hasn't been required. I do note, however, that Janet last had a MHTP completed in 2019[38].

7. In his report Professor Velakoulis further states that:

8. Janet has been largely treated with medication alone rather than in conjunction with psychological treatments. This would not be unusual for a person who has had many years of schizophrenia and is in the care of a GP without specific psychiatric or psychological input.[39]

8. Professor Velakoulis also acknowledges that Janet should have psychiatric input on a regular basis but this:

...may not be feasible given costs of a private psychiatrist.... [and it] ... is unlikely that Janet would satisfy acuity criteria for treatment by a local area mental health service, given that her condition is relatively stable and that she is not at risk to herself or others.[40]

9. The Tribunal is therefore be satisfied that there are no known, available and appropriate evidence‑based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment.
10. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the psychosocial impairments attributable to Schizophrenia and Depression are permanent.

1. In relation to the permanence of Osteoarthritis, Dr Fayman, stated that:

2.i) I do believe Janet requires ongoing physiotherapy. The intended outcome would be: > > - Optimisation and maintenance of joint function and mobility > > -Optimisation of muscle strength and joint stability > > -Optimisation of joint biomechanics Slowed progression and preservation of independence > > ii) Janet is not currently taking medication for osteoarthritis pain. If required, simple analgesics (e.g., paracetamol) or anti-inflammatory medication could be trialled. > > iii) There is currently no indication seek rheumatological nor orthopaedic input as we have not yet maximised simple therapies to try and optimise her condition. > > iv) Janet's osteoarthritis is not yet optimally managed. > > v) Janet continues to have day to day physical impairments as a result of her osteoarthritis. This includes daily pain, impaired mobility and gait, impaired range of motion and exercise tolerance, and impaired biomechanics. .... > > 4) I feel that are multiple potential management options (including optimised physiotherapy, simple analgesia, anti-inflammatory medication) that are not yet optimised that could help improve Janet's symptoms. However, I feel that Janet's level of impairment is largely irreversible and treatment at this stage is aimed at symptom control and preventing further decline and disability rather than reversing impairment. > > 5) Weight loss and regular exercise could help improve Janet's symptoms.[41]

2. The Applicant described having pain in both knees and stated that she uses a walking stick for assistance with stairs. The Applicant explained that she was undertaking physiotherapy and was discharged by her treating practitioner about 10 months earlier. She stated that has an elastic to do exercises, but she can't do the exercise regularly now because of the pain. When she visits her GP, she doesn't discuss managing her osteoarthritis: "maybe a year ago was the last time I talked to her about osteoarthritis. I have other issues to talk to her about."[42]
3. The Applicant further stated that she knows she can take medication for the pain, but her priority is to take medicine for her other medical conditions. The Applicant is not currently taking any painkillers:

They offered me pain killers, but I am already on so many tablets that I didn't wat to take any more, I only want tablets that are necessary. I chose not to take the pills, I am already on so many pills already and I don't think they are good for your organs.[43]

4. Ms Lewis in her report stated that the Applicant:

demonstrates signs of deconditioning, primarily related to limited community participation, absence of a structured exercise program, and obesity.[44]

5. Ms Lewis stated that despite this, the Applicant is:

content with her management strategies and has not expressed a desire to modify her environment or pursue changes to the medical management of her conditions... it reflects her current practice and perceived adequacy of her functioning.[45]

6. The Tribunal finds that there are treatments that may remedy the physical impairments the Applicant experiences due to her osteoarthritis. Based on the medical evidence, and the testimony of the Applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant's optimisation of medical treatments has been established.
7. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are no known, available and appropriate evidence‑based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment.
8. The Tribunal finds that due to the availability of treatments that may remedy the applicant's osteoarthritis, it cannot be said that the impairments arising from this disability are permanent under section 24(1)(b).

1. the psychosocial impairments as a result of the Applicant's schizophrenia are permanent under section 24(1)(b) and

2. the physical impairments as a result of osteoarthritis are not permanent under section 24(1)(b).

1. Given the Tribunal's above findings, the only matter to be considered in relation to section 24(1)(c) is in relation to the Applicant's substantially her psychosocial impairments.
2. The fact that the applicant has some reduced functional capacities and would benefit from some assistance is not sufficient to gain access to the NDIS. The Tribunal must determine whether the Applicant has a permanent impairment that results in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:

(a) communication > > (b) social interaction > > (c) learning > > (d) self-care > > (e) self-management.

3. The Tribunal is required to use the Rules and the Guidelines, to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the Applicant has substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the above activities, assessing the applicant's functional capacity with respect to the bundle of tasks and actions forming the concept of those activities[46].
4. A person will not necessarily be deemed to have substantially reduced functional capacity because one task is unable to be completed without assistive technologies. The fact that an applicant cannot perform a particular task does not mean he/she is unable to participate "effectively or completely" in the activity prescribed by s24(1)(c)[47]. The test is one of objectivity and not a subjective comparison[48]. The Tribunal must distinguish between what the person does not do, as opposed to what they cannot do.
5. Ms Lewis administered a World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) Assessment was administered with the Applicant on 22 July 2025. This is a structured tool used to determine how much functional impairment a person experiences.
6. The results of this assessment, were outlined as follows:

Cognition - Understanding and communicating 12.50% > > Mobility- Moving and getting around 70% > > Self-care - hygiene, dressing, eating and staying alone 37.50% > > Getting along with others - interacting with other people 55% > > Life activities - domestic responsibilities, leisure, work and school 62.5% > > Participating in society - joining in community activities 53.13%[49]

7. Ms Lewis concluded that the WHODAS 2.0 assessment results showed that the Applicant is currently functioning within the moderate disability range, with an overall disability score of 48.44%. [50]
8. In explaining the methodology of the WHODAS assessment, which is a self-reporting tool, Ms. Lewis explained that the overall overage indicated moderate difficulties. As a result, she stated that she would need to look individually in the different domains, and make recommendations in those particular areas.[51] Ms Lewis stated that in her view, the results of the test are reflective of what was observed at the time of the assessment.
9. The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal should place little weight on the WHODAS score. It contended that the results outlined by Ms Lewis were self-reported, without challenge, and the scores were not moderated based on professional assessment. The Respondent contended that the global score is an equal average of the different domains, some of which are not relevant to psychosocial impairments that forms the substantive matter of the hearing.
10. The Tribunal finds that the WHODAS Assessment should be given minimal evidential weighting as a result.
11. In relation to evidence relating to functional capacity, Professor Velakoulis stated that this was beyond his area of expertise and would normally fall to an OT to give expert evidence in this regard. Professor Velakoulis was not confident in his testimony as it related to functional capacity. He couldn't properly assess impacts on communication without the proper backgrounds or longer sessions, stating:

one-off cross-sectional interview is difficult. Ideally one would want to engage or have some information from people who know that person and provide external material about how the person interacts - I would need a long-term perspective and others who know the person to give information about the person. To do that on the basis of one cross sectional interview, is challenging.[52]

1. In regard to functional capacity, the Tribunal finds the evidence of Ms Lewis (excepting the WHODAS assessment) preferable.

1. The Access Guidelines define communication as follows:

Communicating - how you speak, write, or use sign language and gestures, to express yourself compared to other people your age. We also look at how well you understand people, and how others understand you.

1. The Tribunal observed that the both the Applicant's written and verbal evidence was appropriate for her age.
2. Professor Velakoulis confirmed that there was an impact on the Applicant's socialisation and communication because of her schizophrenia. More specifically this was a result of her misinterpretation of communication from others, based on the Applicant's delusional beliefs. However, both the Applicant and Professor Velakoulis confirmed in their evidence that that the Applicant is aware this is happening and adjusts her medicines as required.[53]
3. The Applicant described minimal communication at work and with other people in her life and her management of communication during a schizophrenic episode:

I live an isolated and reclused life and only talk if I have to talk that's the way I am...When I am in an episode - I shut down but if I have to talk to someone, I use very short sentences.[54]

4. Ms Lewis confirmed that when the Applicant is experiencing positive impairments, the Applicant can take time off work, she can cancel engagements, she can choose to rest and stay home, limiting herself to reduced tasks[55].
5. Ms Lewis confirmed it was appropriate for the Applicant to adopt this course when required at the time of her assessment she did not observe structural deficits regarding communication - the Applicant understood questions and her responses were appropriate.[56]
6. In its SFIC the Respondent contends, based on Ms Lewis's Functional Capacity Assessment, that:

Ms Lewis does not identify any functional limitations in the activities of communication. > > The Applicant communicates verbally with clear, fluent speech with appropriate tone, volume and speech quality. > > The Applicant has sound written communication skills, demonstrated by her ability to write letters and lists. > > The Applicant has appropriate receptive and expressive language abilities, demonstrated by her ability to engage with Ms Lewis during the assessment in a pleasant and polite manner to develop rapport.[57]

7. The Respondent contended that the reduction in functional capacity is limited to the infrequent episodes and, otherwise, the Applicant has no substantial functional limitations in the activities of communication. In the Respondent's view this doesn't rise to a substantive reduction in functional capacity, and the other tasks of communication remain intact even when the Applicant is experiencing positive impairments.
8. The Applicant confirmed that when she experiences a reduction in capacity because of positive impairment, she recovers within 2-3 weeks, and that her capacity fluctuates in that time so that she might not be able to go to work one day, but may be able to on another.[58]
9. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is able to participate effectively and completely in communication activities without assistance from a person, assistive technology, equipment or home modifications. The Tribunal finds on the basis of the medical and functional evidence and the Applicant's presentation at hearing that her permanent impairments do not result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake communication activities.
10. The Tribunal is not satisfied that s24(1)(c)(i) is met in relation to communication.

1. The Access Guidelines define social interaction as follows:

Socialising - how you make and keep friends, or interact with the community, or how a young child plays with other children. We also look at your behaviour, and how you cope with feelings and emotions in social situations

1. Ms Lewis reported[59] that the Applicant has limited social connections, that the majority of her leisure activities are private and she has a preference for limited social interaction and prefers familiar and longstanding social connections as opposed to making new ones.
2. The Applicant explained that she doesn't make friends easily. She has:

1 or 2 friends from school days that I keep in touch with...I'm a recluse - I keep to myself and don't bother socialising. I don't see the 2 friends very often and if I get really bad, I cancel the visits and I shut down and I don't bother socialising when I get really bad. Outside of that I don't see them very often. A hedge between keeps friendship green. [60]

3. In discussing her weekly routine, as described in her Statement of Lived Experience (SOLE) undated,[61]the Applicant confirmed that on Monday and Friday she works, and between Tuesday and Thursday, she undertakes different activities such as shopping.
4. The Applicant stated that sometimes after work she goes shopping, but she usually comes home because she is tired. The Applicant stated that she:

..doesn't have any problems interacting at the shops "because there are no staff anyway, I move to self-serve check out system... In the mornings I might go to appointments, housework, garden work. I go to Aldi. At the church you get free grocery, its food that the supermarkets can't sell.[62]

5. The Applicant sees her brother "from times to time - once every 3-4 months". She usually travels to him, he doesn't visit her, but she can receive people at her house.
6. Ms Lewis stated that:

...Based on my assessment she has the social skills, was able to interact comfortably with me, was in her own home where she feels most comfortable, and talked about skills at work, to create relationships with the people she works with. I would say yes - she has the potential and skills to create relationships.[63]

1. In relation to the Applicant's preferences for small group interaction the Respondent contended in its SFIC:

First, socialising does not mean interaction with the whole community, but with elements of the community. Therefore, the Applicant's socialisation being limited to a small number of individuals does not point towards substantially reduced functional capacity. > > Second, it is important to maintain a distinction between a person's functional capacity to carry out a task and their functional performance of that task. Functional performance is relevant to s 24(1)(d) and may be impacted by personality, personal characteristics and extrinsic factors, but that is not relevant to the s 24(1)(c) enquiry as to capacity. On this basis, the Applicant's personal preference to largely spend her time alone is relevant to performance of social interaction, but not to her capacity to socially interact at moments when she so chooses. [64]

2. The Tribunal finds that while compromised during periods of positive impairments, and given the evidence relating to the Applicant's personal preferences, there is insufficient evidence to establish a substantially reduced functional capacity for social interaction under s24(1)(c).
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied that s24(1)(c)(ii) is met.

1. The Access Guidelines define learning as follows:

Learning - how you learn, understand and remember new things, and practise and use new skills.

1. The Applicant described the impact of her impairments on her ability to learn when she has schizophrenic episodes or gets depressed and stated:

I don't want to learn. I have to try and concentrate and get over this episode.[65]

2. However, both Professor Velakoulis and Ms Lewis felt that their interactions as well as cognitive screenings suggested that there is no current evidence to suggest that the Applicant is unable to learn new skills.
3. Professor Velakoulis described that that largest negative impact of her schizophrenia on the Applicant was an altered life trajectory based on the emergence of her schizophrenia in her early 20s. He explained that the Applicant's university education and professional qualification points to a different trajectory and type of employment than she has now.
4. Ms Lewis confirmed that the Applicant is able to complete learning tasks without external assistance and stated:

Within her home, I observed really clever strategies she has put into place to manage her daily life. When I talked fire risks and cooking, pulling out plug from toaster or putting a splashback at back of hotplates to reduce risk- she is problem solving, she is thinking through safety strategies and is able to come up to manage her everyday living while at home. I felt confident she was safe and able to live on her own.[66]

5. The Tribunal observed that Applicant following instructions to overcome technical challenges to virtually be present for the hearing itself. The Applicant has demonstrated that she is able to participate effectively and completely in learning activities without assistance from others, assistive technology, equipment or home modifications.
6. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has the ability to learn, understand, remember, practise and use new skills. The Tribunal therefore finds that while compromised during periods of positive impairments, there is insufficient evidence to establish a substantially reduced functional capacity for learning under s24(1)(c).
7. The Tribunal is not satisfied that s24(1)(c)(iii) is met.

1. The Access Guidelines define mobility as follows:

Mobility, or moving around - how easily you move around your home and community, and how you get in and out of bed or a chair. We consider how you get out and about and use your arms or legs.

1. In relation to mobility, the Tribunal observed the difficulty the Applicant has in getting out of her chair to get a glass of water. She was clearly in pain as a result of her osteoarthritis.
2. The Applicant explained that she manages well getting around the stairs, as long as she takes her time. She stated:

At front door there is a tiny step, the house is all flat, there is a little step at the back door, but I grip onto the door frame and swing like a monkey and get out to do what I have to do. I mostly stay inside. At work - the area is all flat, no steps so don't need any aides. As long as I take my time and think and say to myself, I don't want to fall because I've had falls, and I'm cautious and that's all.[67]

3. Ms Lewis made the following observations during her assessment as summarised in paragraph 77 of the Respondent's SFIC:

77.1 The Applicant could walk approximately 100 meters around her home. > > 77.2 The Applicant was independent with transfers to and from her bed, toilet and shower, although there was associated pain and difficulty. > > 77.3 The Applicant can drive independently for up to 50 minutes to her brother's place, despite experiencing some pain with getting into the vehicle. > > 77.4 The Applicant could sweep leaves on her front porch while demonstrating an adequate and active balance. > > 77.5 The Applicant is able to walk to the supermarket while leaning into a trolley. > > 77.6 The Applicant can lift groceries independently from the trolley into the car.[68]

4. Ms Lewis observed there were clearly issues with the Applicant's knees where her movements were slower and more precise. However, the Applicant did not require assistive technology for assistance with transfers or mobility around the home and did not want a motorised scooter because she would not be able to get it in and out of the car. Ms Lewis reported that the Applicant did talk about earlier falls, but she did not observe any associated risks at the date of assessment.[69]
5. The Respondent accepted that the Applicant experiences a reduction in her capacity for mobility because of her age and physical impairments but contended that she could currently ambulate both at home and in the community independently without them.
6. The Respondent argued and the Tribunal finds that even though the Applicant is compromised for some individual tasks within the overall activity of mobility, when considering the bundle of tasks as a whole, the Applicant does not have a substantially reduced functional capacity in respect of mobility.
7. There is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the Applicant has a substantially reduced functional capacity in mobility as a result of her psychosocial impairments under section 24(1)(c).
8. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that s24(1)(c)(iv) is met.

1. The Access Guidelines define self-care as follows:

Self-care - personal care, hygiene, grooming, eating and drinking, and health. We consider how you get dressed, shower or bathe, eat or go to the toilet.

1. In relation to self- care, Ms Lewis stated that despite challenges, the Applicant:

presents with a strong sense of resilience and can-do attitude and presents a picture of strong capacity" over all of the activities under section24 (1) (c), including the functional capacity to perform personal care tasks independently, including activities of daily living without assistance, including hygiene, showering, dressing, grooming, eating, laundry, and grocery shopping.[70]

2. The Tribunal was presented with two modified approaches utilised by the Applicant regarding personal care tasks: First, using a wet course hand towel to wipe after a bowel movement, as a result of her inability to reach to that area and secondly, preferring to bathe in her pool, occasionally using a shower to wash her hair.[71]
3. The Respondent contended that the Applicant's personal preference to self-care in this manner does not suggest reduced functional capacity in self-care.[7]
4. The Applicant agreed that this preference was not affected by episodes of poor mental health or her psychosocial impairments[72].
5. The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish a substantially reduced functional capacity for self-care under s24(1)(c).
6. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that s24(1)(c)(iv) is met.

1. The Access Guidelines define self-management as follows:

Self-management (if older than 6) - how you organise your life. We consider how you plan, make decisions, and look after yourself. This might include day-today tasks at home, how you solve problems, or manage your money. We consider your mental or cognitive ability to manage your life, not your physical ability to do these tasks.

1. As outlined in the Respondent's SFIC, in relation to self-management both Ms Lewis and Professor Velakoulis had the view that the Applicant's independent decision-making ability in relation to self -management is not impaired.[73]
2. In line with the Applicant's NDIS gaols, house cleaning and maintaining the yard were a focus in the hearing.
3. In relation to maintaining the yard, the Applicant stated that she:

regularly gets a gardener in to cut the grass, weed and prune etc... I just sweep the paths.

4. In relation to cleaning, she stated that she prefers to do her own cleaning within the home:[74]

Living on my own I very rarely have to clean but prefer to clean up a I go. However, I engage a cleaner when necessary.[75]

5. Ms Lewis reported that the Applicant is currently content with her management strategies and has not expressed a desire to modify her environment or pursue changes to the medical management of her conditions. Ms Lewis confirmed in her oral testimony that the Applicant has a:

...strong preference for routine stability, and cognitive strategies which she manages independently and reduces her reliance on formal supports... We discussed what she would do when she has an episode and she know what to do to ask for help, she knew how to self-talk, she knew how to access food, she said she would prefer to stay in bed, but hey were appropriate strategies at that time.[76]

6. The Respondent articulated in closing submissions that periods of reduced functional capacity do not rise to the threshold of substantiality:

When she is at the baseline (negative impairments) she defers paying her bills, she may choose to sponge herself rather than taking a bath -there is a reduction in her functional capacity when she is at her worst, but it is not as if those tasks of self-care and self-management can't be undertaken. The Applicant accepted her ability to plan, adjust means that even when she is experiencing symptoms, she has the capacity to do what is necessary to execute on the core activities ....Any reduction is temporary - any capacity rebounds and importantly, she is so independent that she doesn't need external support, assistance or medical treatment for this to occur. It is a well-controlled long standing psychological impairment which the Applicant is well prepared and experienced in adapting to... [77]

7. The evidence is insufficient for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the Applicant has a substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake self-management activities under s24(1)(c).
8. The Tribunal finds that while compromised periodically, the Applicant is able to participate in self‑management activities.
9. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that s24(1)(c)(v) is met.

1. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not satisfy paragraph 24(1)(c). As the Tribunal has concluded that this requirement is not met, it does not need to make findings in relation to whether the Applicant's impairments affect her capacity for social or economic participation and whether she is likely to require NDIS supports for her lifetime as set out in paragraphs 24(1)(d) and (e).

1. The early intervention requirements in section 25 are cumulative and the Applicant's failure to meet one or more of those requirements must lead to the conclusion that she does not meet the early intervention requirements of section 25(1).
2. Accordingly, as a result of the findings made by the Tribunal relating to section 24(1)(a) - (c) it is not necessary to consider the remaining criteria under subsection 25(1).

Having found that the Applicant does not meet the disability requirements set out in section 24 of the Act, nor does she meet the early intervention requirements in section 25, the Tribunal determines that the decision under review is correct and that decision is affirmed.

[1] Revised 21 May 2021-20 May 2024; JHB: T 14-16, pp. 87-109.

[2] Revised 21 May 2021-20 May 2024; JHB T16, p108-106.

[3] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 2023 837 at [62].

[4] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409.

[5] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002; FBJV and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 913 at [117]; Grasser and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 188 at [112] to [113].

[6] National Disability Insurance Agency v Lampard [2025] FCAFC 139 2025 859 at [91].

[7] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 at [64] - [66].

[8] Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544, [56]; HPSC and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 727 at [67], National Disability Insurance Scheme v Sutherland [2026] FCA 3.

[9] Nika and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 2127 at [248]; Madelaine and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 4025 at [72]- [76].

[10] National Disability Insurance Agency v Lampard [2025] FCAFC 139 2025 859 at [94].

[11] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 2023 837 at [80].

[12] National Disability Insurance Scheme v Sutherland [2026] FCA 3 at [112-113].

[13] See Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [37]- [38], [45]-[46] (Kirby J), [99] (Hayne and Heydon JJ), [143] (Kiefel J). Esber v The Commonwealth [1992] HCA 20; (1992) 174 CLR 430 at 440; Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250 at [51]; QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189.

[14] QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189 at [7].

[15] Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165 (20 November 2015) at [68].

[16] Report, Ms. Lewis, D6 JHB, pp.266-298.

[17] Report Professor Velakoulis, D5 JHB

[18] Reports Dr Fayman, T6, T9, D7 JHB pp. 62, 73, 299-302.

[20] Respondent SFIC A1 JHB para 24, p.9.

[21] Report, Professor Velakouliss, D5 JHB para 2. p 261.

[27] Respondent SFIC, A1 JHB, para 24, p.9.

[28] Respondent SFIC A1 JHB para 24, p.9.

[36] Respondent SFIC JHB A1 para 32, p.10.

[39] Report, Professor Velakoulis, D5 JTB, p.262.

[40] Report, Professor Velakoulis, D5 JTB. pp. 262-263.

[41] Report, Dr Fayman D7 JTB p. 300-301.

[44] Report Ms Lewis, D6 JHB para 4 (n) p. 286.

[45] Report, Ms Lewis, D6 JHB para 11 (c) p. 297.

[46] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 2023 837 at [65].

[47] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 2023 837 at [88-90].

[48] Madelaine v National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 4025 2020 693 at 109].

[49] Report, Ms. Lewis, D6 JHB, para 17.2, p. 277.

[50] Report Ms. Lewis, D6 JHB, para. 17.3, p. 278.

[52] Professor Velakoulis, oral testimony.

[53] Report, Professor Velakoulis, D5 JHB, para 13 p.263.

[57] Respondent SFIC, A1 JHB, para 61, p13.

[59] Report, Ms Lewis, D6 JHB para 3 (a), p280.

[61] Applicant, oral testimony; Applicant SOLE, C4 JHB, pp2.17-226.

[64] Respondent SFIC, A1 JHB, para 68, p.14.

[68] Respondent SFIC, A1 JHB, para 77, pp15-16.

[73] Respondent SFIC A1 JHB, para 86, p.18.

[75] Applicant SOLE, C4 JHB, pp. 217-226.