Lawson and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 874 | Case summary

Lawson and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 874 | Case summary | Zoe

[22]

Mrs Lawson is aged 48 years and lives with her husband. She was granted access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2022 based on various impairments resulting from Susac's syndrome including hearing loss, visual and cognitive impairment, as well as severe nausea and vomiting. She applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to refuse her request for funding for the purchase of fruit and a vaporiser which she considers reasonable and necessary.
On 14 August 2024 a Delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) approved a Statement of Participant Supports (SoPS) in Mrs Lawson's plan.[1] Mrs Lawson sought review of that decision because it did not include the requested supports. On 30 September 2024 an internal reviewer with the NDIA confirmed the decision.[2]
On 9 October 2024, Mrs Lawson applied to the AAT for review of the NDIA's decision made on 30 September 2024.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The hearing was held on 22 and 23 April 2025 via Microsoft Teams audio. Mrs Lawson was represented by her husband, Mr J. Lawson. The NDIA was represented by Ms L. Beange of counsel who was instructed by Ms I. Goodwin from Sparke Helmore Lawyers. Representatives from the NDIA were also present during the hearing.
The Tribunal had before it the joint tender bundle (JTB) comprising 280 pages. Mrs Lawson relied on a letter from Adam Prater, which was undated, marked A46 in the JTB.
The Tribunal heard evidence from Mrs Lawson, her neurologist, Associate Professor T. Hardy, Ms H. Cole, occupational therapist and Ms H. Jager, trainer with The Stretch Lab. No witnesses were called by the NDIA.

[63]

In National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[6], the Full Court of the Federal Court also considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports and said:
1. The phrase is a composite phrase. We accept the Agency's submissions that each limb of the phrase should be given work to do. That task is not difficult, or complicated with these two particular words, which are readily understood as conveying different meanings...
2. ...Both adjectives qualify the noun "support", but they do so as a composite phrase. It is not fruitful to split them off and consider them separately, just as it is neither fruitful nor appropriate to attempt any exhaustive or authoritative judicial definition of them.
3. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the contextual use of the phrase in this Act links it to public funding to be provided to a participant. In that context, the phrase connotes supports which meet a threshold which justifies - by reference to the context, objects and guiding principles of the Act and the facts of the case - the expenditure of public funds for that support, for a particular participant. As we have already explained, the phrase also needs to be understood taking into account what has qualified a person as a participant, and the links between a person's impairment and their full participation in the community, in the same variety of ways as persons without a disability might choose to participate. It is not accidental, in our opinion, that Parliament has chosen the term 'participant' to describe individuals who will receive funded support: the choice of that term reinforces, as we have sought to explain, that the driving objective of this Act is the holistic, improved and increased participation by persons with disability in the life of their communities, and in life itself.
In addition to the provisions in the NDIS Act, the Transitional Support Rules and the Support Rules, the Tribunal is obliged to consider the relevant Operational Guidelines relating to reasonable and necessary supports. The Operational Guidelines contain governmental guidelines and policy as to how the legislation is to be applied. The Tribunal acknowledges that, whilst it may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it.[7]

[64]

In his opening submissions to the Tribunal, Mr Lawson expressed concerns about Mrs Lawson's experience with the NDIA. He submitted that there were delays in processing her access application and then delays in advising Mrs Lawson that her application for access had been approved. He also submitted that the impairments for which Mrs Lawson was granted access were incorrectly recorded which impacted her ability to access reasonable and necessary supports. Mr Lawson submitted that the access application was based on the impairments arising from Susac's syndrome, including hearing loss, cognitive impairments and constant daily nausea and vomiting which impact all aspects of Mrs Lawson's life. He insisted that this issue be resolved by the Tribunal because Mrs Lawson's disability has never been assessed properly.
Mr Lawson submitted that Mrs Lawson's attendances at The Stretch Lab were previously funded through her plan. At some stage after October 2024, a decision was made to disallow the Stretch Lab attendances. However, the decision was not communicated to The Stretch Lab, Mrs Lawson or her plan manager and Mrs Lawson has incurred a debt because she continued to attend the facility. Mr Lawson submitted that the debt should be settled by the NDIA.
Mr Lawson also expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of a plan implementation meeting despite multiple requests and enquiries.
In response to the concerns raised by Mr Lawson, Ms Beange on behalf of the NDIA confirmed that the impairments resulting from Susac's syndrome were not in dispute (at least for the purposes of this proceeding) and the NDIA accepts that Mrs Lawson experiences hearing loss, cognitive impairment and daily nausea and vomiting. Ms Beange submitted that the other issues raised by Mr Lawson are not matters the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine. The Tribunal agrees.
While sympathetic to Mr and Mrs Lawson, the reviewable decision before the Tribunal concerns approval of Mrs Lawson's SoPS and specifically whether the supports she has requested are reasonable and necessary. While the Tribunal may need to consider the impairments for which Mrs Lawson was granted access to the NDIS, this is not an application for access. Mr and Mrs Lawson's concerns about the lack of communication and implementation meetings, and the resulting debt fall into the category of service delivery issues and are not within the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It is open for Mr and Mrs Lawson to raise their concerns directly with the NDIA.
Ms Beange informed the Tribunal that the NDIA have agreed to fund Level 1 Transport and 11 hours of dietician support. After the hearing, the parties provided a written agreement confirming that the parties agreed to vary the reviewable decision to include Level 1 Transport and 11 hours of dietician support. The Tribunal will give effect to this agreement as it relates to part of the proceeding, in accordance with subsection 103(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

[65]

Mrs Lawson was not legally represented at the hearing and her case was presented with a mix of evidence and submissions. Prior to the hearing several documents were prepared by Mr and Mrs Lawson to explain her disability and support needs. The evidence and submissions were reiterated during the hearing. The Tribunal has summarised the evidence about her disability and history below for context. The evidence and submissions relating to specific supports will be detailed below as the Tribunal considers each individual support requested by Mrs Lawson.
Mrs Lawson worked in hospitality and lived a very active lifestyle prior to the onset of Susac's syndrome.[8] She was managing shift work, including night shifts while completing a jewellery course at Tafe. She began to experience frequent migraines, sleeping disturbances, fatigue and visual disturbances. Her colleagues reported changes in personality. In 2010 she was eventually diagnosed with Susac's syndrome, a rare inflammatory autoimmune disease which caused damage to her brain, eyes and ears. Mrs Lawson was treated with intensive immunosuppressant therapies. As a result of her initial attack of Susac's syndrome and the intense treatment which followed, Mrs Lawson has been experiencing daily nausea and vomiting since 2011.[9] Treatment to date has been unsuccessful. Mrs Lawson now relies on medically prescribed cannabis to manage the nausea.
In her written submissions and during the hearing, Mrs Lawson said that the constant daily nausea and vomiting impacts all aspects of her life. She struggles to leave the house, and her social interaction is limited to her doctors and support workers. In her statement, she reported that that she has vomited in inappropriate situations including, at work, on public transport, at the gym, in a shopping centre, at a family Christmas function and at her grandmother's funeral.[10]
Mr Lawson told the Tribunal that the frequency of vomiting has caused tension in Mrs Lawson's body resulting in neck, back and leg pain. Mrs Lawson frequently wakes abruptly to vomit, the disturbed sleep and the strain of the frequent vomiting causes fatigue which further impacts her ability to leave her house. Mrs Lawson stated that she is unable to hold down food and the only nutritional food source she can tolerate is smoothies made from fresh fruit. She stated that the chronic daily nausea and vomiting was impacting both her physical and emotional wellbeing.[11]
Mr and Mrs Lawson submitted that all the requested supports are directly related to her disability and therefore, should be funded by the NDIS. Mr Lawson acknowledged the limitations resulting from the legislative amendments, however, he and Mrs Lawson submitted that an exception should be made because the requested supports are directly related to Mrs Lawson's disability.

[66]

Associate Professor Hardy is Mrs Lawson's neurologist. He completed the medical report as part of Mrs Lawson's application to access to the NDIS[12] and a report dated 29 November 2024.[13] A/Professor Hardy reported that Susac's syndrome has caused pathology in the area postrema of the brainstem which has led to the vomiting which he described as chronic, refractory episodic since 2011.[14] He supported Mrs Lawson's intake of fruit smoothies which "seem to result in adequate nutrition" and which "trigger fewer episodes of vomiting." A/Professor Hardy supported Mrs Lawson's request for necessary equipment to assist in the preparation of the smoothies and noted that the increased costs of living and Mrs Lawson's inability to work has meant that her special diet is no longer affordable. He reported that "in order to maintain her physical fitness and cope with symptoms of pain, I also think it is important that she be supported in her ongoing physiotherapy at The Stretch Lab and access to the hub."[15]
In evidence before the Tribunal, A/Professor Hardy said that Susac's syndrome affects patients differently, but it does affect the eyes, ears and causes cognitive impairment which are the key features of the diagnosis. The chronic nausea and vomiting, with associated fatigue, was the most disabling for Mrs Lawson. He gave evidence that Mrs Lawson was referred to gastroenterologists for the nausea and vomiting and had tried pharmacological agents without success.
In response to questions from Ms Beange, A/Professor Hardy said that there were two aspects of Mrs Lawson's fatigue. It is a primary component of the Susac's syndrome, and it is also the result of Mrs Lawson's vomiting. When asked to offer an opinion about the pain Mrs Lawson was experiencing, he could not be certain whether it was primarily the result of Susac's syndrome. He observed that there were symptoms in Mrs Lawson's left arm because of Susac's syndrome but he could not be certain that Susac's was the primary cause of the current reports of pain. In response to questions about the benefits of the fruit smoothies and the physiotherapy, A/Professor Hardy said that he had not recommended either nor was he overseeing the exercise program. He said that he was supporting the requests because Mrs Lawson reported the fruit smoothies and the physiotherapy to be beneficial for her.

[67]

Ms Cole is an occupational therapist who assessed Mrs Lawson. Ms Cole prepared two reports dated 31 January 2025[16] and 2 April 2025.[17] She gave evidence that she assessed Mrs Lawson in a 2-hour session and subsequent telephone conversations. She explained that her assessment consisted of administering the Abbreviated Living Skills Profile (LSP-16) which required Mrs Lawson's response to a series of questions. Ms Cole then assessed Mrs Lawson's functional capacity through a structured interview. Ms Cole reported that Mrs Lawson's scores in the LSP-16 demonstrate that her "disability has significantly impacted her function in activities of daily living over the preceding 3 months."[18] In assessing Mrs Lawson's functional capacity, Ms Cole reported that Mrs Lawson had lost contact with her friends and experienced difficulties keeping arrangements due to the unpredictability of her vomiting, and social environments are overwhelming for Mrs Lawson. She reported that interaction with the community is limited because of Mrs Lawson's inability to drive, and she has lost confidence in her ability to communicate because of her social isolation.
Ms Cole reported that Mrs Lawson's chronic vomiting and consequent fatigue impacts her ability to complete tasks such as cooking, shopping and household tasks. Mrs Lawson also struggles to attend to personal care tasks consistently.
Ms Cole gave evidence that Mrs Lawson has a sedentary lifestyle because of pain, loss of muscle tone and strength, and loss of stamina which impacts Mrs Lawson's ability to perform activities of daily living, including sustaining a clean and tidy home which is one of her NDIS goals. Mrs Lawson's inability to complete such tasks was increasing her stress, thereby, increasing her vomiting episodes. When asked about her recommendations for Mrs Lawson, Ms Cole said that sessions with The Stretch Lab were recommended because it assisted her physically but was also allowing for social interaction. Medicinal marijuana which is prescribed, is helpful for sleep thereby, allowing Mrs Lawson to complete the tasks she wishes to. Exercise equipment allows Mrs Lawson to complete the exercises prescribed for her, and gives a sense of achievement, structure and focus. Ms Cole expressed concern about the long-term impact on Mrs Lawson's mental health because of her isolation.
In cross examination, Ms Cole acknowledged that the supports she recommended were based on the benefits as reported by Mrs Lawson. She did not have any knowledge of The Stretch Lab or the qualifications of the staff that were providing the service. Ms Cole did not assess Mrs Lawson's physical strength or balance and said that such assessments are completed by physiotherapists. Ms Cole opined that exercise in some form would be beneficial both physically and mentally for someone with a sedentary lifestyle.
In response to questions from Ms Beange, Ms Cole said that Mrs Lawson is able to engage when out in a social or recreational setting. However, there are barriers to her attending such as transport. Mrs Lawson does not drive and would benefit from additional support hours that can be used flexibly for social and domestic purposes.

[68]

Ms Jager is part owner in The Stretch Lab, a clinic that provides assisted stretch therapy. Ms Jager prepared a letter in support of Mrs Lawson's attendance and participation in stretch therapy.[19] Ms Jager reported that in the initial assessment, Mrs Lawson demonstrated extreme muscle tightness, poor concentration and coordination, frequent cramps/spasticity, reluctant muscle movement, congested connective tissue and associated pain, muscle aches, muscle weakness and tenderness, reluctant mobility in joints and widespread stiffness and considerable unsteadiness and imbalance in legs and hips.
In her letter, Ms Jager reported that over the course of treatments, Mrs Lawson has reported that the treatments have been helpful for body aches, tightness and overall wellbeing, greater relaxation and lengthening of muscles to manage pain for a short period of time; she shows a response immediately after treatments in terms of mobility, flexibility, balance and strength, her mood improves during sessions and Mrs Lawson has reported more sound sleep.
In cross-examination, Ms Jager said that she is one of four trainers who have worked with Mrs Lawson. She and her colleagues have completed courses in anatomy, physical therapy or similar. Ms Jager and her business partner, Nat, are registered with AUS active. To remain current with their registration, Ms Jager and Nat require continuing education to maintain 20 points. Staff rely on their individual physiology backgrounds, together with the training modules completed at The Stretch Lab. Ms Jager gave evidence that stretch therapy is different to physiotherapy and exercise physiology and is not personal training or massage therapy. She said that stretch therapy would likely be part of a personal training program.
In describing the stretch therapy, Ms Jager gave evidence that the aim is body conditioning, but strength and balance may also be improved. In assessing their clients, Ms Jager said they don't use machinery and instead feel, touch and speak to clients. The program for the session will depend on how the client is feeling, what the person has been doing and what the person needs on the day. The staff at The Stretch Lab speak to clients about their goals. Mrs Lawson's goal was to be able to go for a walk alone. No time frames are set for achieving the goals. Ms Jager told the Tribunal that benefits of stretch therapy have been well researched and there are countless articles confirming those benefits.

[69]

The NDIA did not call witnesses at the hearing and relied on the written submissions set out in the Respondent's Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions[20] and a submission in reply to Mrs Lawson's updated list of requested supports.
Ms Beange submitted on behalf of the NDIA that the threshold question for the Tribunal is whether each of the requested supports is an NDIS support. This enquiry focusses on the support, not the participant and requires a two-stage process as set out by Senior Member French in Re FSWN.[21] The Senior Member explained that the first stage requires the Tribunal to determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within Schedule 2 if the answer is yes, that is the end of the enquiry, and the support cannot be funded. If the answer is no, the Tribunal must then determine whether the requested support falls within a category of support in Schedule 1. If the answer is no, the support cannot be funded. If the answer is yes, the Tribunal must proceed to consider the other criteria in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act.[22]
Ms Beange submitted that with the exception of the capacity building/therapeutic supports requested by Mrs Lawson, namely, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and dietician hours, all the other requested supports are not an NDIS support under Schedule 2 to the Transitional Support Rules and therefore, cannot be funded.
Ms Beange submitted that while physiotherapy, occupational therapy and dietetics are an NDIS support under item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Support Rules, Mrs Lawson's current plan includes 10 hours of physiotherapy, 15 hours of occupational therapy, 12 hours of speech pathology and 20 hours of Level 2 therapy assistant. These therapeutic supports can be used flexibly.
Ms Beange informed the Tribunal that the existing budget has not been utilised by Mrs Lawson. She submitted that there was no evidence of regular engagement with either a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist, there was no evidence of a program or the goals to be achieved and the time frame for the achievement of those goals. Ms Beange referred to the letter of Mr Prater and submitted that while he recommends access to weekly physiotherapy, no further details are provided. Similarly, Ms Cole reports that Mrs Lawson would benefit from seeing an occupational therapist. However, she does not provide an opinion on the frequency and the specific goals that would likely be achieved.
In circumstances where the existing budget has not been utilised, the absence of clinical justification for the additional hours sought, Ms Beange submitted that the Tribunal could not be positively satisfied that the requested supports were reasonable and necessary and specifically that the additional hours would assist Mrs Lawson to pursue her goals and represent value for money.

[86]

There was no dispute that physiotherapy falls into the category of therapeutic supports in item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Support Rules and therefore, is an NDIS support. However, that is not the end of the enquiry. The Tribunal must consider whether the physiotherapy sought satisfies all the criteria in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
The first question for the Tribunal is whether a significant increase in physiotherapy hours is necessary to address the needs arising from the impairment in relation to which Mrs Lawson met the disability requirements in accordance with section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act. Ms Beange agreed on behalf of the NDIA that the frequency of vomiting would inevitably result in some pain and discomfort which has been recognised by the NDIA in approving 10 hours of physiotherapy. Mrs Lawson gave evidence that her neck, back and leg pain has now developed into nerve pain. She confirmed in evidence that she had not consulted her doctor about the nerve pain. There was no evidence before the Tribunal detailing any examinations or assessments to identify the source of the pain, diagnosis or whether the pain is amenable to treatment. A/Professor Hardy was unable to comment on the source of the pain although he acknowledged that Susac's syndrome has resulted in pain in Mrs Lawson's left upper limb. He was unable to confirm that the pain Mrs Lawson now experiences is a consequence of Susac's syndrome.
In response to questions from Ms Beange, Mrs Lawson gave evidence that she had spoken to her general practitioner about her pain about 8 or 10 years ago and a referral to a physiotherapist was recommended for 5 sessions which Mrs Lawson said was "highly inappropriate." In circumstances where Mrs Lawson has not sought medical intervention or assessment for what now appears to be more widespread and increased pain, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on balance, that a significant increase in physiotherapy hours is necessary to address the needs arising from the impairment for which she was granted access to the NDIS, namely visual, hearing and cognitive impairments, as well as fatigue and discomfort from the frequent daily nausea and vomiting. Therefore, paragraph 34(1)(aa) is not met. It follows that additional physiotherapy hours are not reasonable and necessary in accordance with subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act and cannot be included in Mrs Lawson's SoPS.

[87]

Mrs Lawson has consistently stated that her attendances at The Stretch Lab have been beneficial for her physical and mental health. Prior to October 2024, she was attending three times each week and since she stopped attending has noticed the decline in her overall wellbeing.
Ms Jager observed the benefits in Mrs Lawson including "greater relaxation and lengthening in muscles to manage pain for a short period of time, a positive response immediately after treatment in mobility, flexibility, balance and strength, and pain is managed during her treatments and her mood improves during her sessions."[25] Ms Jager gave evidence that there are publications detailing the benefits of stretch therapy. However, there was no independent evidence to confirm the long-term therapeutic benefits of stretch therapy before the Tribunal.
Ms Jager gave evidence that the assistive stretch therapy is different to exercise physiology and personal training. The aim of the therapy is body conditioning that may also improve strength and balance. The Tribunal understood that the client's presentation on the day determines what is appropriate as opposed to developing a personalised program after a comprehensive assessment at the outset. Ms Jager told the Tribunal that Mrs Lawson found The Stretch Lab independently and the staff do not provide progress reports to a treating doctor or allied health professional.
Having heard the evidence of Ms Jager, the Tribunal views the assisted stretch therapy as a low impact exercise regime similar to pilates or yoga or a conditioning class which is more accurately described as a general health or fitness cost in the category of a day-to-day living cost relating to lifestyle under subitem 4(q) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Support Rules. The Tribunal finds the stretch therapy is not an NDIS support and therefore, paragraph 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied. It follows that the attendance to The Stretch Lab is not reasonable and necessary and cannot be included in Mrs Lawson's SoPS.

[90]

Mr Lawson was referred to Ms M. Faulks, dietician in December 2024. Ms Faulks conducted an initial assessment of Mrs Lawson on 12 December 2024 and provided a report dated 24 December 2024.[26] Ms Faulks also prepared two reports dated 14 January 2025.[27] Ms Faulks reported that Mrs Lawson presents with inadequate oral intake of energy and protein, poor meal regularity, suboptimal intake of iron, calcium, B vitamins and omega-3s, excessive fruit/fruit juice intake and lack of food and nutrition knowledge.[28] Ms Faulks prepared a plan and outlined a range of goals for Mrs Lawson to increase her energy and protein intake to assist her to meet her NDIS goals. Ms Faulks recommended 11 hours of dietetic services for initial assessment, review sessions and progress reporting. She also recommended an additional 11 hours for review consultations and resource development. Mrs Lawson gave evidence that she attended the dietician for the purpose of report writing with some consultations to review progress with the recommendations made by Ms Faulks. Mrs Lawson said that she has tried various powders and drinks, as well as recipes recommended by Ms Faulks.
Mrs Lawson requested additional hours to permit a session every 3 weeks, initially, and that frequency would taper off over time. The report from Ms Faulks shows that an assessment has taken place, and an implementation plan prepared. Consultations with Mrs Lawson have commenced. It appears that the first 11 hours recommended by Ms Faulks have been utilised and funded with Mrs Lawson's existing capacity building supports. The NDIA have agreed to fund a further 11 hours as recommended by Ms Faulks for review consults and resource development.[29] There is no evidence before the Tribunal to justify additional hours.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the dietetics support is an NDIS support under item 34 of Schedule 1. However, as Mrs Lawson has only recently begun to access the services of the dietician, no progress reports have been prepared and Ms Faulks has not recommended additional hours at this stage. Ms Faulks recommended 22 hours and 11 have been utilised. The NDIA have agreed to fund 11 hours which is entirely reasonable on the evidence. The Tribunal is not satisfied that additional hours represent value for money under paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIA Act. Therefore, additional dietician hours are not reasonable and necessary.

[91]

At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms Beange requested an opportunity to seek instructions and to provide submissions to the Tribunal about the duration of Mrs Lawson's plan. Ms Beange submitted that a 12-month plan was appropriate in this case. Mr and Mrs Lawson were given the opportunity to respond to the NDIA's submission. There was no dispute that a 12-month plan is appropriate and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal agrees.
In the course of the proceeding, the NDIA agreed to fund Level 1 Transport and 11 hours of dietician support. After the hearing, the NDIA's representative confirmed in writing that it was the NDIA's preference that the Tribunal vary the decision under review to include the agreed transport and dietician hours. Mr and Mrs Lawson were invited to respond and confirmed in writing that they had nothing to add. On 18 June 2025, the parties provided signed terms of agreement in accordance with subsection 103(4) of the Act and requested that the Tribunal give effect to the agreement as to part of the proceeding. The Tribunal is satisfied that the variation sought by the parties is within the powers of the Tribunal.
With the exception of the agreed supports relating to travel and dietetics, the Tribunal has not changed the decision under review. The Tribunal is sympathetic to Mrs Lawson whose impairments are having a significant impact on her life and that most of the requested supports have previously been beneficial for her. However, the NDIA and the Tribunal are bound to apply a very strict legislative framework that does not allow for exceptions. While many of the requested supports were denied, the Tribunal was unable to change the reviewable decision in respect of the therapeutic supports because there was a lack of probative evidence to support a different finding. Mrs Lawson is encouraged to work with her support coordinator to ensure she understands her plan and uses her approved supports to their full potential which may allow a different decision to be made in the future.

Lawson and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 874 (24 June 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (102 paragraphs)

Lawson and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 874 (24 June 2025)

Legislation Cited (9)