3. In February 2024, the Respondent received a Change in Circumstances request from the Applicant.[3]
4. On 26 February 2025, the Respondent approved a SOPS totalling $262,456 for a 12-month period.[4] Core funding for support worker assistance appears to account for most of the increase in funding and totalled $227,728. The change in circumstances form was not before the Tribunal.
5. On 4 June 2025, the parties reached agreement on several supports and the Applicant withdrew his request for other supports including a six-week holiday to Pakistan.[5]
6. On 10 June 2025, the Respondent approved a SOPS totalling $226,762 for a 12-month period.[6] Core funding totalled $187,406. The supports found to be reasonable and necessary were:

(a) Consumables totalling $6,532. > > (b) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) totalling $116,854 > > > (i) 3.6 hours per day assistance with self-care activities > > > > (ii) 3 hours per week with personal domestic activities > > > > (iii) 2 hours per month of house or yard maintenance. > > (c) Social, Economic and Community Participation (SECP) totalling $64,020. > > > (i) 2.15 hours per day > > (d) Capacity Building totalling $39,356 > > > (ii) Plan management > > > > (iii) Support Coordination Level 2 - 70 hours per year > > > > (iv) Level 1 Transport > > > > (v) OT - 30 hours per year > > > > (vi) Speech therapy - 26 hours per year > > > > (vii) Psychologist - 26 hours per year > > > > (viii) Other therapy (chiropractor) - 4 hours per year

7. The Applicant raised concerns repeatedly during the hearing about the change to his plan on 10 June 2025. It was his understanding that he could no longer use capacity building funds for myotherapy and remedial massage. He asserted that an Agency staff person advised him that he could use physiotherapy funds for those supports following the 26 February 2025 decision.
8. The Applicant's advocate provided an email purportedly sent by a Planner/Delegate of the Respondent which included the following information:

• Physiotherapy: (info from Planning Conversation Tool provided to Mohsin by Planner/Delegate) > > Parkinson's Disease is a progressive neurological disorder caused by the death of dopamine-producing neurons in the brain. The exact cause is unknown, but it leads to complications such as movement issues, balance problems, cognitive impairment, mental health challenges, physical pain, muscle spasms, tremors, and sleep disturbances. Mohsin's case is atypical as medications are ineffective for him. He cannot take prescribed medications because they worsen his symptoms. Consequently, he suffers from constant pain, muscle tremors, spasms, impaired coordination, and poor balance, leading to physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion. Mohsin's pain primarily stems from uncontrollable muscle spasms and tremors. He often tries to stretch his muscles for relief, with varying success. Continued funding for physiotherapy, including hours for hydrotherapy, myotherapy and remedial therapies, will support his ADLs and IADLs as his capacity declines. This will help him remain safely at home and prevent additional travel barriers. (Tribunal's emphasis).[7]

9. The Tribunal is unable to determine exactly who provided this information. It accepts the possibility that a staff person from the agency advised the Applicant, either orally or in writing, that he could use funding for physiotherapy for myotherapy and remedial therapies. If this occurred, the Tribunal is also satisfied that the information did not reflect the Respondent's official position regarding those therapies and represents a miscommunication by an individual staff person which may have led to a misunderstanding between February 2025 and June 2025.
10. It is unclear whether the Applicant used his physiotherapy funding for other therapies during the short intervening period between plans. The Respondent did not indicate any intention to take further action pursuant to section 46 of the NDIS Act.
11. In any event, the Tribunal repeatedly explained to the Applicant that the Tribunal would review the decision and the Tribunal's decision would effectively override the Respondent's decision of 26 February 2025 and 10 June 2025.

1. The issues in dispute at hearing include the following:

(a) 9 days (3 x 3 days per year) for short-term accommodation (STA)

(b) Mobile phone (consumables funding)

(c) Laptop (consumables funding)

Capacity building supports

(d) 104 hours of hydrotherapy

(e) 104 hours of complementary or alternative medicine (CAMs)

(f) 69 hours of myotherapy

(g) 65 hours of remedial massage

(h) 52 hours of osteopathy

(i) 52 hours of somatic therapy

(j) 4 hours of psychiatry

(k) 70 hours of neurofeedback

(l) 4 hours of neurology

(m) 26 hours of neurolinguistic programming

(n) 52 hours of lifestyle and job coach

(o) 10 hours of ophthalmology

Capital supports

(p) Funding to build a 'wellness room'.

1. The Tribunal observes that the request for therapy, most of which is 'hands-on', totals 612 hours per year. Allowing for holidays, this equates to approximately 2 hours of therapy per day including weekends.

1. The Applicant was supported at the hearing by Ms Horne-Spalling, a disability advocate from ADEC. He was also assisted on the second day of hearing by his support coordinator Ms Zoe Halligan, after she gave oral evidence. This issue is discussed further below. The Applicant received legal advice from Victoria Legal Aid prior to hearing.
2. The Respondent was represented by Ms Amy Douglas-Baker of Counsel and instructed by Mills Oakley lawyers.
3. The hearing was conducted by video over 2 days. The following witnesses gave oral evidence at the hearing:

(a) the Applicant > > (b) Support Worker, Ms Tiffany Kerley > > (c) Physiotherapist, Mr Simon Ashton > > (d) Support Coordinator, Ms Zoe Halligan > > (e) Physiotherapist, Mr Paul McCann > > (f) Occupational Therapist (OT) / Hand therapist, Ms Melissa Whitten > > (g) Independent OT, Ms Phi Van Houston

4. In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal has considered all the written evidence provided in the joint hearing bundle comprising 663 pages (admitted and marked 'JHB') and the oral evidence given at the hearing. The following documents were also admitted into evidence:

(a) E1 - Second email statement from support worker, Ms Kerley > > (b) E2 - Applicant's additional submissions regarding request for confidentiality / pseudonym order > > (c) E3 - Respondent's chronology of tribunal events and Applicant's engagement with services > > (d) E4 - Respondent's summary of issues in dispute, dated 10 June 2025 > > (e) E5 - Email from Ms Horne Spalling confirming receipt of first statement from Ms Kerley on 18 December 2023. > > (f) E6 - Applicant's plan dated 3 December 2024 > > (g) E7 - Applicant's plan dated 26 February 2025 > > (h) E8 - Applicant's plan dated 10 June 2025 > > (i) E9 - Progress note from Dr Alex Yeung of Royal Melbourne Hospital, dated 3 June 2025 > > (j) E10 - Email from Applicant's advocate dated 12 June 2025 regarding planning conversation re February 2025 plan and question of hydrotherapy, myotherapy and remedial massage being included. > > (k) E11 - Applicant's closing submissions dated 12 June 2025 > > (l) E12 - Applicant's list of supports and other submissions dated 3 June 2025 > > (m) E13 - Letter from Applicant's GP dated 15 June 2025 > > (n) E14 - Letter to Tribunal from Applicant dated 15 June 2025 > > (o) E15 - Letter from Dr Nagao dated 17 June 2025 > > (p) E16 - Letter from Dr Yeung dated 18 June 2025 > > (q) E17 - Applicant's handwritten notes during hearing. > > (r) E18 - Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.

5. The Tribunal will refer to the evidence that is directly relevant to the determination of this matter, including an assessment of the weight that should be given to the evidence.

(19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the delegate/internal reviewer and must make the correct or preferable decision based upon the evidence and other material before it;[8] and

(28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction is determined by reference to the scope of the internal reviewer's powers under section 100 of the NDIS Act, which is in turn informed by the scope of power under section 33(2) of the NDIS Act.[9]

1. The relevant provisions under the new Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) are sections 54 and 105.

1. On 21 January 2025, the Applicant's disability advocate wrote to the Tribunal with the following request:

The Applicant wishes to advise all parties that they wish to apply for pseudonym to be applied to their ART review matter. > > Give the matter has been timetabled to hearing, the Applicant wishes to make the application based on the following: > > Due to cultural and privacy concerns the Applicant wishes to have a pseudonym applied to their case. > > Due to the sensitive nature of the supports in dispute, the Applicant wishes to apply to the Tribunal for a pseudonym. > > Due to the Applicant having limited privacy in the home, the Applicant wishes to apply to the Tribunal for a pseudonym to be applied in their matter.

2. On 31 January 2025, the Tribunal made the following direction in response to the Applicant's request:

3. On or before 14 February 2025, the Applicant must give the Tribunal and Respondent written submissions which provide specific details or reasons for an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), noting the considerations which the Tribunal must have regard to under section 71(2) of the ART Act.

Notation: The matter will be listed for an interlocutory hearing at a date to be fixed to determine the matter.

4. The Applicant did not comply with the direction.
5. On 8 April 2025, the Applicant's disability advocate sent a further email raising a number of issues related to the hearing. She also wrote:

The Applicant has asked that a pseudonym be applied to this matter given the sensitive nature of some support requests. A formal request has been previously lodged for consideration via email and a verbal discussion in the previous directions hearing.

6. On 29 May 2025, the Tribunal held a telephone directions hearing to explain the hearing process and answer any logistical or practical questions prior to final hearing. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not provided additional information for a determination to be made under section 70 of the ART Act. The Applicant was invited to provide further reasons/submissions in support of a confidentiality order, which would be considered by the Tribunal at hearing.
7. On 6 June 2025, the Applicant's disability advocate sent a further email advising that the Applicant no longer wished to use a hearing room that has been arranged for him at the Melbourne registry, noting that the Tribunal would appear from Sydney via video. She also said:

The Applicant wishes to notify the Tribunal they wish to apply for a pseudonym to be applied to the matter. Due to the sensitive nature of some previously requested supports by the Applicant there is a significant risk to family relations, should the Applicant not be anonymous and have his privacy protected. The applicant has teenage children who he does not want to be privy to discussions that may occur at the hearing. Due to very strict cultural customs and expectations in the Applicant's community, not having privacy regarding in this matter would cause very significant cultural risks for the Applicant, including isolation, ridicule and embarrassment. Some of the topics of conversation referred to in the Van Houston OT report would have serious implications for the Applicant and his family and may impact his standing in the community, should they be made public. The Applicant hereby requests the Tribunal member to please award the Pseudonym to this matter and is seeking confirmation prior to the Hearing.

8. Following introductory remarks, an explanation of the hearing process and opening submissions on the first day of hearing, the Tribunal outlined the procedural history above. The Applicant indicated that further submissions had been emailed to Registry shortly prior to commencement of the hearing. The Tribunal stood the matter down to consider those submissions.
9. The Applicant's further submissions by email dated 9 June 2024 state:

Dear Tribunal Member, > > I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally request the ability to use a pseudonym in the tribunal in accordance with my sincerely held religious beliefs. > > My faith places significant importance on certain things and I would like to have a Pseudonym to protect myself and family. I would like to not have my community discriminate as I am no longer able to provide for my family which is a requirement under the Quran. As a practicing adherent, maintaining anonymity in this regard is essential to my spiritual integrity and personal well-being. This request aligns with my commitment to uphold the tenets of my faith while trying to maintain my position in my family and community. > > I appreciate that tribunal strives to create an inclusive and respectful environment for individuals of diverse backgrounds. Religious freedom is a fundamental right protected under privacy protections laws as well as anti-discrimination laws based on religion, gender and other attributes. By permitting the use of a pseudonym, Your Honour, it would be fostering inclusivity and ensuring that all individuals can engage without compromising their beliefs. > > I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss this matter further and explore any necessary steps to facilitate the request. Please let me know how we might proceed with this accommodation. > > Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to your response. > > Sincerely, > > Mohsin Sheikh[10]

1. Sections 69, 70 and 71 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 relevantly provide:
   1. Hearings to be in public unless practice directions or Tribunal order requires otherwise

(1) The hearing of a proceeding in the Tribunal must be in public.

Note: The hearing of a proceeding is the substantive hearing of the matter before the Tribunal. Directions hearings do not need to be in public (see definition of hearing of a proceeding in section 4).

Exception - practice directions may require private hearing

(2) Despite subsection (1), in the circumstances specified in the practice directions:

(a) the hearing of part of the hearing is to take place in private; and

(b) only the persons specified in the practice directions may be present

Exception - Tribunal may require private hearing

(3) Despite subsection (1), the Tribunal may, by order:

(a) Direct that the hearing or part of the hearing is to take place in private; and

(b) Give directions in relation to the persons who may be present.

Note: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.

1. Tribunal may restrict publication or disclosure of information

Information about parties, witnesses and others

(1) The Tribunal may, by order, give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of:

(a) information tending to reveal the identity of:

1. a party to or witness in a proceeding in the Tribunal; or
2. any person related to or otherwise associated with any party to or witness in a proceeding in the Tribunal; or

(b) information otherwise concerning a party, witness or other person mentioned in paragraph (a).

Note 1: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.

Note 2: Breach of a non-publication or non-disclosure order is an offence (see section 119).

Information relating to a proceeding

(2) The Tribunal may, by order, give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication or other disclosure of information that:

(a) relates to a proceeding in the Tribunal; and

(b) is any of the following:

1. information that comprises evidence or information about evidence;
2. information given to the Tribunal.

Note 1: The power must be exercised in accordance with section 71.

Note 2: Breach of a non-publication or non-disclosure order is an offence (see section 119).

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the order may prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceeding.

Order can be made on application or on Tribunal's initiative

(4) The Tribunal may make an order under this section on application by a person or on its own initiative.

1. Requirements for Tribunal orders about hearings, publication and disclosure

Practice Directions

(1) In making an order under subsection 69(3) or section 70, the Tribunal must comply with the requirements (if any) specified in the practice directions.

Considerations

(2) In considering whether to make an order under subsection 69(3) or section 70 in relation to a proceeding, the Tribunal must have regard to the following:

(a) the principle that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings in the Tribunal are held in public;

(b) the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public;

(c) the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents given to the Tribunal are made available to all the parties to the proceeding;

(d) any reasons in favour of making an order, including the following:

1. in any case - the circumstances of the parties to the proceeding and other persons connected to the proceeding;
2. in any case - the harm (if any) that is likely to occur to a person if the order is not made;
3. in relation to an order under section 70 - the confidential nature (if any) of the information;

(e) any other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant.

1. The Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction 2024 outlines the types of hearings that must be held in private, as required by law. NDIS matters are not included.[11]
2. The Administrative Review Tribunal, Publication of decisions policy (11 December 2024) also provides relevant guidance. Part 2.2 notes, "Publishing decisions helps us achieve our objective of providing a mechanism of review that improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making, and promotes public trust and confidence in the Tribunal. Part 4 further states:

4.1 A written decision is not published if: > > (a) any legislative provision prohibits the publication of the decision; > > (b) a Tribunal member make a direction by order under section 70 of the ART Act to the effect that the decision, or part of the decision, not be published; or > > (c) the extent of the editing required to comply with non-disclosure requirements renders the written decision unintelligible. > > 4.2 Generally, a Tribunal member may make a direction by order under section 70 of the ART Act that a decision is not to be published if satisfied, having regard to the considerations in section 71(2), that in the circumstances of the case the harm arising from the publication of the decision outweighs the public interest in publishing the decision.

3. Part 5 concerns preventing the publication of personal information that could create a risk of identity theft, the identification of a vulnerable person or any other misuse of information. Accordingly, under part 5.1(b) Tribunal members:

(i) must only include information about a party, witness or other person in their reasons for decision if that information is relevant to the findings or necessary for the cogency of the reasons; and > > (ii) must not, in general, set out in full, unique personal identifiers such as dates of birth, dates of anniversaries, current or past residential addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses or other unique numbers, including bank account or credit card numbers, motor vehicle registration or driver's licence details, or Centrelink, child support, Medicare, passport or tax file numbers.

Legal principles regarding confidentiality orders

1. Relevant principles regarding the making of confidentiality orders were summarised by the Tribunal's predecessor Tribunal in Azzopardi and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 105 (8 February 2019) and include the following:

5. It will be clear from the express terms of the Act that, unless there are clear > > reasons why confidentiality orders should be imposed, hearings and decisions > > should be open to the public or made public. It is from this point that any > > consideration of the issuing of confidentiality orders must proceed... > > 6. Where there is a broad public interest in preserving the confidentiality of > > names or the positions or details of individuals or companies, such orders can > > be granted, especially if the order is one with only short-term application... > > 7. Similarly, it may be appropriate for confidentiality orders to be made where > > matters relate to Protection Visas or refugee claims or identification of the > > names of children involved in court proceedings. > > ... > > 9. In past cases the Tribunal has made orders suppressing names or granting > > pseudonyms in other instances, such as: prejudice to future employment > > prospects; the need to avoid publicity to assist rehabilitation; being prejudicial > > to reputation; adverse impact on business activities; where stay applications > > were on foot; where third parties could be identified or where prejudice to > > criminal proceedings may occur. > > 10. However, the preferable position is for the business of the Tribunal to be > > conducted in public... > > ... > > 13. Given the clear provisions of the Act, it is incumbent upon applicants for > > administrative review to understand that the default position will always be in > > favour of open hearings and maximum disclosure... Applicants seeking a > > confidentiality order to redact their names from public view bear the onus to > > establish that they have good grounds for this... As this Tribunal has said, > > their "case must be sufficiently strong to take the case out of the ordinary". > > 14. Furthermore, in doing so, such a grant must be shown to be in the public > > interest... > > ... > > 16. As the Tribunal has noted, there are some areas of public administration > > where a degree of confidentiality is necessary for the effective operation and > > discharge of the underlying public policy objectives. However the Social > > Security Act 1991 is not one of those. Indeed, to the contrary, there is a clear > > public interest in seeing that its operations are open, transparent and subject > > to public scrutiny... > > 17. The protection of privacy is an important public policy objective, even within > > the ambit of the Australian system of "open justice", and this is well > > understood by the Tribunal. > > 18. On the other hand, secrecy in the proceedings of courts and tribunals is > > obviously corrosive of public understanding of, and trust in their operations. In > > this respect the Tribunal has given greater weight to the "openness principle" > > and ensuring that its decision-making is "conducted and seen to be conducted > > in a transparent and open manner"...

2. As the Tribunal observed in Labrino v National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 1985 (6 July 2023):

In NDIS matters there will often and inevitably be evidence about an applicant's > > health, impairments, physical and psychosocial well-being, and capacity to > > participate in activities of daily living. Frequently, medical reports and allied health > > reports in NDIS cases refer to sensitive aspects of a person's history. This is not > > isolated to matters in the NDIS Division, as Senior Member Parker observed in > > XCFB and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 4121 (2 December > > 2022 at [13]: "... this [is] often a necessary feature of applications arising in other > > Divisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (that is, other than the NDIS > > Division), in particular in the Veterans Appeals Division or applications involving > > decisions about claims for workers compensation or disability support pensions, > > reviewed by the General Division. The Tribunal observes that it was not > > uncommon in such matters for the Tribunal's Reasons for Decision to be published > > containing information that openly identifies an individual person by name and sets > > out the medical history in detail".[12]

3. The Federal Court decision of Huikeshoven v Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment[13] provides a useful summary of the common law principles regarding open justice and applications for suppression and non-publication orders in Commonwealth courts. The Tribunal notes the relevant legislative provisions are different to those applicable to this Tribunal.

Interlocutory decision on request for confidentiality order

1. At the resumption of the hearing on the first day, the Tribunal informed the parties that it had considered the Applicant's submissions and noted that whilst matters of religion may be sensitive, it was not persuaded that there was sufficient reason to depart from the principle contained in section 71(2) of the ART Act that it is desirable that hearings are held in public and evidence made available to the public.
2. The Tribunal explained that it would keep an open mind as the hearing progressed and the Applicant could make further submissions as required. The Tribunal provided brief oral reasons for declining to make the order, referring to the Tribunal decisions mentioned above, and explained it would provide written reasons as part of its final decision.
3. Relevant to these proceedings, the principles that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings in the Tribunal are held in public and that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public needs to be weighed against the circumstances of the Applicant and his family and the harm (if any) that is likely to occur to the Applicant if the order is not made.
4. The Tribunal observes that the Applicant's request for a 'sensitive' support was withdrawn some time prior to hearing. The Tribunal has no reason to traverse the evidence that pertains to that support in this decision as it is no longer in issue.
5. The Applicant did not provide any supporting evidence regarding his assertions of discrimination that he is likely to face in his community or because of his religious beliefs. There is no corroborating evidence about the harm, if any, that is likely to occur if an order is not made. There was no evidence that the Applicant regularly attends any religious and/or cultural events or that he has particular standing in the Pakistani-Australian and/or Muslim community.
6. The Tribunal does not accept the assertion that a pseudonym would protect the Applicant from discrimination based on his unemployment status. The Applicant has not worked since 2020, he is driven to social engagements by a support worker and his wife has commenced paid employment for the first time in recent years because he no longer works. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant's unemployment status is known within his community. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant necessarily experiences discrimination from his community because of his unemployment.
7. The Tribunal does not accept the implication that by refusing to grant a confidentiality order, the Tribunal might somehow undermine an inclusive and respectful environment for individuals of diverse backgrounds and/or that it has required the Applicant to compromise his religious beliefs as part of his application for review. It is a matter for the Applicant what supports he requests, what evidence he provides to the Tribunal as justification for those supports and whether those supports accord with his own religious beliefs and customs.
8. While the Tribunal's discussion of certain supports and/or evidence in its decision may cause the Applicant embarrassment, there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that it takes his case outside the ordinary discomfort that most applicants likely experience when information that is personal to them is publicly discussed and decided upon. The Tribunal avoids gratuitous disclosure of sensitive information unless such disclosure is central to a finding of fact. As an essential public service, the Tribunal is of the view that NDIS decisions regarding the allocation of public money to fund reasonable and necessary supports, which routinely run to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in an individual's plan, require public scrutiny unless there is a clear legislative prohibition or compelling reasons supported by evidence.
9. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence provided that the Applicant's circumstances are unique or unusual in the Australian context, or that he is likely to experience harm in the manner claimed.
10. For these reasons, the Tribunal declines to make a confidentiality order pursuant to section 70 of the ART Act.

1. The Applicant told the Tribunal he was diagnosed with atypical Parkinson's in late 2020. He further explained that medications for Parkinson's disease like Levodopa, Safinamide and Rigantine patches don't work for him. The Applicant said he suffered "very horrific side effects" including nausea, drooling, fatigue and falling over.[14]
2. Dr Nagao, in her letter to the Respondent dated 1 December 2022 confirmed the Applicant's diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease and said the Applicant "has been poorly responsive to medications or has developed side effects to them". She also wrote "alternative therapies including myotherapy, remedial massage, biofeedback and neurorehabilitation through a chiropractor have improved his range of hand movement, dexterity, pain and emotional wellbeing".[15] It is unclear how Dr Nagao formed her view about the benefits of therapy beyond the Applicant's self-reports.
3. In her letter dated 18 August 2022, Dr Nagao noted the Applicant attended his appointment with her "immediately after a remedial massage session and states that this is his best clinical state". She noted "he has prominent subjective cognitive concerns", "minimal improvement on levodopa" and "feels that safinamide has improved his hand stiffness but cause pruritus and urinary frequency".[16] Dr Nagao thought "it is possible the urinary symptoms are secondary to his underlying Parkinson's rather than safinamide" and thought it worthwhile to seek a urology opinion.[17]
4. Finally, on 3 August 2023, Dr Nagao wrote that she "reviewed Mohsin for right sided parkinsonism, dystonia, anxiety and tics". The Applicant reported an increase in involuntary movements following a prescription of pramipexole ER 0.375mg and a previous trial of Madopar aggravated his dystonia.[18]
5. Despite cuts to his therapy funding in his NDIS plan about 10 months prior, Dr Nagao noted:

Examination was unchanged from last review: > > Right upper limb mild rigidity. Right upper limb pronation-supination rest tremor, also on sustained posture without reemergence. Tremor settles with action. Exaggerated slowness and atypical interruptions on finger taps. No left hemibody bradykinesia. Gait - good stride length, reduced right arm swing. Turns well. No tics.[19]

6. The Tribunal noted that many of the documents in the JHB referred to atypical Parkinson's. Th Applicant and his treating practitioners appeared to rely on this diagnosis as the reason for many of the alternative therapies requested or recommended. For example, in his closing submissions, the Applicant wrote:

Atypical Parkinson's disease, especially when paired with Young Onset Parkinson's, is not only rare but also deeply misunderstood. I required tailored interventions that fall outside the conventional NDIS categories. I am not only seeking appropriate funding - but more importantly, the restoration of my choice and control, which was removed without due process.[20]

7. The Tribunal explained to the Applicant that it understood a diagnosis of atypical Parkinson's would only be made after medication trials. Therefore, it was unlikely atypical Parkinson's would be diagnosed in the first instance. The Tribunal sought confirmation from the Applicant when his diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease was reviewed and updated to atypical Parkinson's, noting it had been unable to locate any document in the hearing bundle confirming the diagnosis.
8. The Applicant provided a progress note from Dr Alex Yeung dated 3 June 2025 which mentioned "early onset PD", noting the Applicant has "had multiple intolerances and side effects to standard Parkinson's disease therapies. Today he had some cognitive fluctuations most likely due to the fact he took an extra dose of CBD oil this morning to help with his pain".[21]
9. The Applicant was permitted time after the hearing to provide a letter from his specialist confirming a diagnosis of atypical Parkinson's. On 15 June 2025, the Applicant's GP Dr Sayed Kazmi wrote:

Mr Mohsin Sheikh is under specialist neurological care the Royal Melbourne Hospital. He presents with a complex movement disorder consistent with atypical Parkinson disease characterised by dystonia, tremors, cognitive impairment, rigidity, significant muscle stiffness with poor response to standard Parkinson's medications. > > Mr Sheikh has trialled multiple Parkinson's related medications over several years with minimal clinical improvement. In many cases, he has experienced intolerable side effects, limiting ongoing pharmacological treatment options.[22]

10. On 17 June 2025, the Applicant's neurologist Dr Nagao wrote:

Mr Sheikh was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2021 by A/Professor Andrew Evans at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. I first reviewed him in April 2020. Symptoms began in late 2020.[23]

11. On 18 June 2025, Dr Yeung from the Royal Melbourne Hospital wrote the Applicant "was diagnosed with early onset Parkinson's disease in 2021 at our clinic".[24]
12. The Tribunal observes that neither of the Applicant's treating specialists wrote 'ayptical' Parkinson's in their correspondence immediately after the hearing, despite a clear request from the Tribunal to the Applicant for confirmation of the 'atypical' diagnosis. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant has a diagnosis of atypical Parkinson's disease. The Tribunal is satisfied he has a diagnosis of early onset Parkinson's disease.

1. The Applicant also claimed to have dyslexia. There was no evidence before the Tribunal confirming a diagnosis of dyslexia. OT Ms Stephane Tivey wrote in her report dated 24 January 2024 "prior to the onset of his Parkinsons disease [dyslexia] was well managed and he was able to read and write. Since the onset of his Parkinsons symptoms (sic) his dyslexia has returned and this makes reading and writing almost impossible".[25] Ms Tivey also wrote "[u]ncontrolled tremors prevent Mohsin from holding and effectively using a pen or computer keyboard to write or type".[26]
2. Independent OT, Ms Houston reported "the Applicant informed that, with the help of his mother, he was able to overcome his dyslexia to study in the UK and obtained two bachelor's degrees and a master's degree".[27] Ms Halligan indicated she knew the Applicant had a degree but did not realise he had studied in the UK or held a Master's degree.[28] Ms Tivey wrote "Mohsin is highly intelligent and previously worked very successfully in data analysis and process development. This required high level executive functioning on a daily basis".[29] The Applicant confirmed he had previously worked in the health and airline sector in Pakistan and worked for Telstra and the Red Cross in Australia.
3. The Tribunal finds the Applicant reported dyslexia to a range of practitioners. The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant has a diagnosis of dyslexia. Regardless of diagnosis, the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant studied at a post-graduate level and has worked in a range of professional roles suggesting he has a good ability to read and write.

1. The Applicant also claimed to experience cognitive decline including memory problems, fatigue, and brain fog. The Applicant reported these symptoms to a range of practitioners and to his advocates. Dr Nagao, the Applicant's treating neurologist noted the following in her letter dated 3 August 2023:

Impression: > > Mohsin appears clinically stable. Over several years his parkinsonism has remained largely on the right. There is significant functional overlay, which responds well to non-pharmacological therapies. His neuropsychology reviews have not identified any significant cognitive impairment despite his subjective cognitive concerns.[30] [Tribunal's emphasis]

2. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that although he visits the Movement Disorders Clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital about every 6 months, they have suggested they do not need to see him as frequently "because there is nothing they can do". He also indicated Dr Nagao said she could see him less often.[31]
3. The Applicant was able to engage effectively for the duration of the 2-day hearing by independently giving evidence, making submissions, and asking questions of witnesses. He was observed to speak the English language fluently and only used the Urdu interpreter very briefly on 3 or 4 occasions. He reported 'zoning out' a couple of times but appeared to regain focus relatively quickly. The Applicant was reminded at a directions hearing and at the commencement of the final hearing that he could request a break at any time. The Tribunal initiated short breaks on several occasions as part of the usual conduct of a hearing, however the Applicant did not request any additional break at any point in the proceedings. He laid down on the floor for a few minutes towards the end of the second day while his advocate engaged on his behalf. He was observed to follow the evidence of other witnesses, which included displaying annoyance or frustration in response to particular questions or answers. This suggests he understood the distinction between evidence that was advantageous to his case and evidence that was not helpful.
4. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant has cognitive or memory problems on the evidence available.

1. The NDIS was established under the NDIS Act. Its objectives are set out in section 3 and its general principles guiding actions taken under the NDIS Act are set out in section 4. Section 3(1)(c) and (g) relevantly states the objectives of the Act are to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability and to promote the provision of high quality and innovative supports that enable people with disability to maximise independent lifestyles and full inclusion in the community.
2. A participant's plan must include a statement of participant supports, approved in accordance with section 33 of the NDIS Act, and any rules made under the NDIS Act.
3. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) came into force on 3 October 2024, changing several key provisions. The Act introduced a new section 10 regarding a definition of NDIS support and amended section 34(1)(f). These changes apply to the Applicant's SOPS and must be considered by the Tribunal.[32]
4. Subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act now relevantly states:

(1) 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.

(a) the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and

(b) a participant's disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.

(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs (1)(aa) to (f).

1. The Tribunal must be positively satisfied about each of the matters set out in section 34(1) of the Act.[33] The Applicant carries what has been described as a common sense or practical onus to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal the criteria are met.[34]
2. The term 'reasonable and necessary support' is not defined in the NDIS Act. In McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308, Mortimer J as she then was, made the following observations at [91] (prior to the recent amendments):

Whether a support is "reasonable" requires a different assessment to whether a support is "necessary". Again, it is not necessary in the context of this proceeding to be definitive about the nature and extent of the meaning of the phrase, or its components. It is enough to observe that using the concept of necessity would appear to tie one aspect of the CEO's assessment to an evaluation of the kinds of factors set out in s 34(1)(a) and (b) and (d). The word "reasonable" would appear to be directed at factors such as those set out in s 34(1)(c) and (f). That is not to say the meaning of each word is exhausted by the factors set out in s 34(1): rather, it is to illustrate the different work that each concept does as an adjective in the phrase "reasonable and necessary supports".

3. The Full Court in National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79, considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports:

[T]here 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.[35]

4. Under subsection 209(1) of the Act, the Minister may make rules prescribing certain matters. Relevant rules in the Applicant's case include the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) ('the Supports Rules').
5. Part 3 of the Supports Rules set out criteria the Tribunal must consider when determining whether the supports requested are reasonable and necessary including whether they represent value for money, are effective and beneficial having regard to good practice, take account of what is reasonable to expect families to provide and are most appropriately funded by the NDIS, rather than through other service systems.
6. Relevantly in this case, Rule 3.1 regarding value for money (section 34(1)(c)) states:

3.1 In deciding whether 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, the CEO is to consider the following matters: > > (a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost; > > (b) whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long-term benefit to, the participant; > > (c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports); > > ... > > (f) whether the support will increase the participant's independence and reduce the participant's need for other kinds of supports (for example, some home modifications may reduce a participant's need for home care).[36]

7. Rules 3.2 and 3.3 regarding effective and beneficial and current good practice (section 34(1)(d)) provide:

3.2 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to consider the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like circumstances. That evidence may include: > > (a) published and refereed literature and any consensus of expert opinion; > > (b) the lived experience of the participant or their carers; or > > (c) anything the Agency has learnt through delivery of the NDIS. > > 3.3 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to take into account, and if necessary seek, expert opinion.

8. Rule 3.4 outlines the matters to be considered when assessing what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide under section 34(1)(e).

3.4 In deciding whether funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide, the CEO is to consider the following matters: > > ... > > (b) for other participants: > > (i) the extent of any risks to the wellbeing of the participant arising from the participant's reliance on the support of family members, carers, informal networks and the community; and > > (ii) the suitability of family members, carers, informal networks and the community to provide the supports that the participant requires, including such factors as: > > (A) the age and capacity of the participant's family members and carers, including the extent to which family and community supports are available to sustain them in their caring role; and > > (B) the intensity and type of support that is required and whether it is age and gender appropriate for a particular family member or carer to be providing that care; and > > (C) the extent of any risks to the long term wellbeing of any of the family members or carers (for example, a child should not be expected to provide care for their parents, siblings or other relatives or be required to limit their educational opportunities); and > > (iii) the extent to which informal supports contribute to or reduce a participant's level of independence and other outcomes; > > (c) for all participants - the desirability of supporting and developing the potential contributions of informal supports and networks within their communities.

9. Part 5 contains general criteria regarding supports and supports that will not be funded. Rules 5.1 and 5.2 provide:

5.1 A support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if: > > (a) it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others; or > > (b) it is not related to the participant's disability; or > > (c) it duplicates other supports delivered under alternative funding through the NDIS; or > > (d) it relates to day-to-day living costs (for example, rent, groceries and utility fees) that are not attributable to a participant's disability support needs. > > ...

10. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) ('the Transitional Supports Rules') introduce several key changes. Schedule 2 of the Transitional Supports Rules stipulate supports that are not considered NDIS supports.
11. The NDIS Operational Guidelines are also relevant to making decisions in accordance with the Act. Operational Guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[37] Relevant guidelines include the Operational Guideline - Reasonable and Necessary Supports and Operational Guideline - Including Specific Types of Supports in Plans - Transport_._[38]

1. In what appears to be his first statement of lived experience, the Applicant wrote:

Since my diagnosis of Early onset Parkinson's when I was only 45 years old, my life has dramatically changed. I no longer feel or recognise myself which itself is agonising... > > Each day is a battlefield until the time I get some treatment. Until my limbs get straight, flexed, and manageable, physically every task is like climbing a mountain. This is not only limited to the physical aspect rather it also greatly impacts my mental state, emotional and spiritual wellbeing too. I am fogged and forgetful as well when in agony. Massive differences are evident in me prior and post therapies which has also been noted by my practitioners which they have highlighted in their reports to NDIS. > > There are days when I wake in the morning, I need support to help me to physically get out of bed and perform my tasks of personal care. Without support I cannot shower or dress myself. If I do not have support I would not be able to dress myself. If I had no support I would be forced to remain in the same clothes for weeks. The symptoms of my disability and the physical impacts mean I cannot perform personal care tasks independently. I cannot stand easily as I have issues with my balance which puts me at risk of falls when I perform tasks such as dressing etc. My tremors, stiffness make general independence virtually impossible.[39]

2. In a statement of lived experience written in 2023, the Applicant wrote:

Right now, I can't bathe, I can't eat and I need help with personal activities of daily living. I want the Agency to seriously consider my request to have my wife to perform this support. I have cultural, religious and personal needs that would meet the Agency's exceptional circumstance criteria. > > I need significant home modifications. I am at increased risk of falls due to my condition and this is not being considered by the Agency. I have had a few near misses - will it take a significant injury before my concerns are heard? I live in a double story house and there is risk of me falling on stairs. > > There is a significant lack of privacy at home. There is no door on the study room at home and I want the Agency to consider my request to have home modifications to address this. I have provided reports and requests - why has this not been addressed? It keeps being ignored. I need adjustments to my bathroom, my toilets and showers. I want to convert half of the garage space into a rehab room as per the previous OT report. Why is this being ignored?[40]

3. In a further statement of lived experience (undated), the Applicant wrote:

I ask the Agency to please be mindful that I have Atypical Parkinson's. I do not respond to medication - none of that works. The only thing that works for me is to access the therapies of my choice. They work. I must access therapies to help me to keep my movement and keep my muscles active. This is the only way I can have functional capacity. Please understand that Atypical Parkinson's is different from regular Parkinson's. The key to me maintaining my functional capacity, my general independence and my ability to interact with others is all based on access to services and supports that work for me.[41]

4. In his statement of lived experienced dated 13 February 2025, the Applicant wrote:

This Atypical Parkinson's (YOPD) is classified as a chronic and incurable illness, and it is documented that it demands a nuanced and flexible approaches to treatment. One that acknowledges the unique nature of this condition. In my case, it is crucial that a shift is made away from generalised criteria to instead embrace specific and tailored recommendations from my treating practitioners. A rigid, one-size-fits-all method is sealing my fate, leaving no room for the improvements I experienced 2022. It would be like giving the same injection or medical dosage to a baby and then to a grown adult. Without the tailored therapies and the support I need, I am experiencing the dark spiral where it becomes progressively more difficult to eat, dress, or even sign my name. The thought of being reduced to a state of complete dependence is unbearable. Your decision does represent a key foundation for me to reclaim my autonomy and get back to continuing my meaningful work, community and family life. I need this support to survive, recover, rebuild and then thrive > > ... > > Allocating the funds under my choice and control to CAMs (complementary and alternative medicine) therapies etc, that have proven to be effective for me is the key to unlocking the constraints I face. This support would allow me to engage in therapies that have a direct and meaningful impact on my quality of life i.e. enabling me to drive, ride, read and organise my life with reduced pressure. Proper adjustments tailored to my specific situation, backed by professional endorsements from doctors, allied health professionals, and practitioners will ensure that my rehabilitation plan is implemented.[42]

Give me the choice and control which I had given before being confined. I don't need to get like specific numbers of OT support or specific number of physiotherapy, 60 hours of that. Let me choose what my requirement is... I just want my flexibility, right and choice and control what works for me.[43]

6. The Applicant told the Tribunal he worked as a business analyst in Pakistan, designing and implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems for the health and airline sectors. He had experience with IT systems development, business management and engineering. "I designed the whole module, systems testing, business analysis, product analysis. It was a complex department, and I designed the whole system for that hospital".[44]
7. The Applicant's evidence was observed to relatively vague with respect to his employment history since arriving in Australia in 2016. "I was kind of a financial analyst as well over here with some company, I don't remember what". He explained he worked for Telstra for 6-10 months and for the Red Cross during the COVID-19 pandemic, assisting migrants who were not eligible for Centrelink.[45]
8. The applicant confirmed he was under the care of the Royal Melbourne Hospital and neurologist Dr Jennifer Nagao who had diagnosed him with Parkinson's Disease. Counsel asked the Applicant whether Dr Nagao had recommended myotherapy. He replied, "nobody can recommend anything" later adding "she didn't object and she said continue with what you are, what's working with you".[46]
9. The Applicant confirmed he often changes practitioners stating:

Everybody has their own style and they understand my condition is fluctuating. The one which I go to sometimes doesn't work anymore, so I have to switch to another person... Now I've just started with another personal who is an osteopath as well, and a remedial masseur as well, both qualified.[47]

10. The Applicant filed evidence showing him using fine tools at a silver ring crafting workshop[48] and presenting to a community forum about inventing a watch band[49]. He submitted that "I can participate in sessions and complete amazing work when I have access to my therapies".[50]
11. During the hearing, the Applicant indicated he was in pain. The following exchange took place:

Counsel: Have you taken anything, any medication for the pain? > > Applicant: The pain medications which I took yesterday night, I can't take it more because it gives me weird effects and it is a very, very weird side effects, diarrhoea and all that stuff. > > Counsel: What pain medication gives you side effects like diarrhoea? > > Applicant: I don't remember. I just sometimes take CBD oil, that's for pain relief. Sometimes I take Norgesic, sometimes I take Norflex and mostly I go for hands on therapy in the morning so that my day remains better.

12. The Applicant indicated he could not recall if he had ever attended a specialist clinic for pain.[51]
13. The Applicant confirmed he receives the disability support pension (DSP) and that he purchased a home in 2022. He said he couldn't remember if his wife was receiving a carer's pension, stating, "we haven't spoken much about it". He told Ms Houston during her assessment that his wife did receive a carer benefit.[52] The Applicant also indicated he couldn't remember how much was owing on the mortgage, but confirmed his son was contributing to the payments. Later in his evidence, the Applicant confirmed that his wife was working about 3 days per week and was working for a company called 'Zoee' operated by his support coordinator Ms Halligan. The Applicant also indicated his wife had been providing 3 hours of support work each weekday since December 2024, when the Respondent approved this arrangement. The following exchange took place:

Counsel: And can you tell the Tribunal what she does to assist you? > > Applicant: She does a lot of things. > > Counsel: Tell us about it. > > Applicant: The breakfast, lunch, dinner. Take me here and there... do my laundry, assist me with bathing, sometimes bathing, choosing clothes, waiting, taking it off, putting it on. > > ... > > Counsel: Ok, and did your wife shower you or assist you with showering? > > Applicant: No, I don't call her every time. I just sit on the floor. Again, as I said, I would like to maintain my independence, but if I need, I call.

14. Despite the inclusion of funding from at least February 2025 for simple bathroom modifications, such as grab rails or fold down stool and high levels of support coordination hours, the Applicant confirmed these changes had not been made. He indicated his OT "was coming over to get the things rolling".[53] He filed a picture of a small, very low-standing plastic stool in his shower.[54] Ms Houston later gave evidence that a shower chair would cost between $120-150. The Tribunal was confused why the Applicant had not prioritised the installation of a permanent or temporary shower chair in circumstances where he had 70 hours of support coordination, OT support and the item was relatively inexpensive. This causes the Tribunal to have concerns about the veracity of the Applicant's claims about his risk of falls and functional capacity more generally.
15. Ms Houston took photos of a massage chair and home exercise equipment including a stationary bike and hand weights. The Applicant indicated he only uses the massage chair about once a week stating, "when I'm having my regular therapies, I don't need anything else because I am in better shape".[55] He also told the Tribunal he goes to community houses to "get motivation to do activities". The Applicant explained that when he is in pain, a therapist applying pressure relieves his pain because "there is more force than I can apply myself". He told the Tribunal that massage generally focuses on right hand, arm, shoulder neck, forearm and leg, thigh, foot, sole of the foot, shin, and calf muscles. He confirmed he has been introduced to a foam roller by several therapists but hadn't used it for about 2 weeks. The Applicant's previous physiotherapist noted in July 2023 that he had been assessed for an E-bike for "mobility independence within local community".[56] The Applicant said he had not used his E bike for about 2 years, stating, "back then, I was able to sign my name as well".[57]
16. Later in the hearing, the Tribunal observed the Applicant handwriting notes on several occasions. Given his prior evidence, the Tribunal asked him to file a copy of his hand-written notes which he did at the conclusion of the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant can write legible notes.[58]
17. The Applicant told the Tribunal he was introduced to Ms Halligan about 2 years ago by a support worker called Timmy. He indicated Ms Halligan was no longer his Support Coordinator, stating, "Not really as such now. Now they, we have another support coordinator and she is helping me more as a support worker now".[59]
18. The Respondent asked the Applicant why his wife was not giving evidence in his application. He replied, "we are coming from a background, different culture, different style, different thinking, different approach". Counsel put to the Applicant that he told Ms Houston during her assessment that his wife thinks he can work. He stated:

We talked a lot of things. I might have said that, but there are certain things which I just doesn't mean... Sometimes like when we were talking, we just say certain words which are not really having an impact and they're just kind of fillers.[60]

19. In circumstances where the Applicant recently purchased a house with a mortgage, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant does not know whether his wife receives a carer's pension nor the balance of their mortgage. The Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant accurately reported to Ms Houston his perception of his wife's feelings regarding his capacity to work. The Tribunal accepts there may have been other factors which influenced the Applicant's decision not to call his wife to give evidence. However, in circumstances where there is conflicting evidence between the Applicant's self-reported functional capacity and the conclusions reached by Ms Houston in her report, the lack of corroborating evidence from a family member, including one who is paid to support him, is significant.
20. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence, discussed in greater detail below, that the Applicant's self-reported symptoms, impairments and functional capacity accurately reflect his experiences and what he can do in day-to-day life. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant exaggerated his impairments and functional limitations and was not always forthcoming in his evidence before the Tribunal.

1. Ms Kerley provided support to the Applicant between March and December 2023, usually once or twice per week for 2-3 hours. Her regular shift was Saturday mornings from 9am.
2. Ms Kerley provided a statement to the Tribunal which was written in December 2023 in response to a range of questions.[61] She asserted that the Applicant had limited informal support and was reliant on support workers to drive him to places in the community.[62] She also wrote:

Mohsin's Parkinson's disease affects his function at different times each day and in different ways. He often requires support remembering his day and the appointments he is required to attend and tasks to complete. This is particularly evident in the last 12 months where he has been unable to access his regular therapies and therefore his function has declined and he requires extra support to navigate day to day life. > > This issue is compounded due to cultural expectations of him as the 'head of the family' and therefore responsible for a number of things. Therefore, he is expected to coordinate and maintain the household. > > Mohsin is a Muslim and is currently unable to attend the local Mosque to participate in prayers. This is due to a deficit in support worker hours. If Mohsin was able to attend the local Mosque, he would be able to engage with his religious community more regularly which would maintain his mental health. > > As per the above, the increase of support worker hours would allow Mohsin the confidence to access the community, receive assistance with his morning ADLs and successfully reskill and re-enter the workforce.[63]

3. A second brief email which had not been filed by the Applicant was forwarded by Ms Kerley to the Tribunal. This email stated:

I worked for Mohsin from January 2023 to December 2023. I just resigned due to commencing my Masters of Social Work. I no longer work as a support worker and I'm volunteering my time in support of Mohsin's appeal. I've been requested to comment on Mohsin's function before his appointments versus afterwards. I believe Mohsin showed improvement evidenced by increased flexibility and functionality in his fine motor skills such as computer work. His mental ability was also increased, as evidence by my needing to support him less to complete tasks.[64]

4. Ms Kerley told the Tribunal she observed the Applicant drive home in early 2023, reportedly from the local shops. Later that year, the Applicant told her it was no longer safe for him to drive. When asked by Counsel what tasks of daily living the Applicant was struggling with in December 2023, Ms Kerley had to think for a moment before indicating he had some difficulty putting on his runners because "the pull wasn't there" and "he couldn't do the knot".[65]
5. Ms Kerley opined that the Applicant experienced brain fog because she had to repeatedly explain, for example, that his son would have to sign a bond authority form. She thought information appeared to sink in more easily after the Applicant had myotherapy.[66]
6. Ms Kerley estimated that about 40 per cent of her time was spent driving the Applicant to places and about 60 per cent was spent on administrative tasks or 'life admin' such as helping to respond to emails, paying bills, gardening and taking photos of belongings for the Applicant to sell on Facebook marketplace. Ms Kerley indicated the Applicant was unable to press the button on his phone to take a photo.[67]
7. The Tribunal observed Ms Kerley to be an honest and frank witness. However, the Tribunal is of the view, having heard all the evidence, that the Applicant exaggerated his functional limitations when in her presence and reiterated to her the importance of hands-on therapy to his wellbeing.

1. Mr Ashton has a Bachelor of Physiotherapy and is registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA).
2. He provided letters or reports in support of the Applicant dated 9 September 2024,[68] 30 January 2025,[69] and an undated document recommending NDIS funded home modifications.[70] Mr Ashton confirmed the undated document would have been prepared sometime in late 2024.[71]
3. Counsel explained to Mr Ashton that the primary duty of an expert is to assist the Tribunal by giving independent evidence. Ms Ashton confirmed he understood this requirement.
4. Mr Ashton indicated he had been engaged by the Applicant to provide a 'second opinion' and said, "we've not had a great deal of close and frequent one to one contact".[72] He confirmed he had spoken with Ms Halligan, particularly regarding to his first report dated 9 September 2024 and shared a draft with her prior to finalisation. He couldn't recall whether she requested any changes to his report but noted "we've definitely had a back and forth on a different letter which I can't recall off the top of my head".[73]
5. In his first report dated 9 September 2024, Mr Ashton acknowledged he was engaged to review the report of independent OT Ms Houston.[74] Mr Ashton effectively endorsed OT Ms Stephanie Tivey's report dated 25 January 2024,[75] suggesting the Tribunal attribute more weight to the Tivey report because it was based on "reliable and relevant data".[76] He also questioned the assessment of Ms Houston and the conclusions contained in her report dated 13 August 2024[77].
6. In his oral evidence, Mr Ashton indicated it was his understanding the WHODAS 2.0 (World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule) assessment tool used by Ms Tivey was based on the Applicant's self-reports. The Applicant scored 94% in the domains of Life Activities and Participation, suggesting extreme disability. Mr Ashton included those results in his own report to support the assertion that the Applicant experiences "severe disability" across all domains.[78] The Tribunal observes that Ms Houston later gave evidence explaining a person scoring 94% in life activities essentially "means they can't do anything at all for themselves".[79]
7. Mr Ashton agreed with Counsel that his description of Ms Houston's report, as one based solely on subjective clinical observation, was incorrect.[80] In fact, she had completed an assessment using a conversational interview approach, clinical observations, a visual assessment of the home and professional analysis of functional capacity.[81]
8. Mr Ashton was observed to extensively address the legislative criteria and to include a reference to a 2015 Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in his first report. In his oral evidence, he could not identify or articulate the relevant part of the decision but said "it was about chiropractic treatment is reasonable and necessary".[82]
9. He told the Tribunal there were lots of ways to approach rehab for someone with a condition like the Applicant's but suggested individual preference significantly influences his recommendations:

But if you're got an individual who's struggling with motivation, adherence, energy, and struggling with their self-care, then then I don't think an assistive technology would be able to replace a, a personal connection to a therapist.[83]

10. Mr Ashton also indicated that he considers it part of his job to help patients achieve their goals and to stay motivated. He agreed with Counsel that recommendations should be realistic and take into account what a person might or might not be prepared to do, but he was not ultimately responsible for ensuring they do it.
11. Mr Ashton confirmed he is not the Applicant's treating physiotherapist; he has not provided any hands-on therapy. He did not conduct any independent assessment, such as a walking test with the Applicant.
12. He indicated that a supervised exercise program helps ensure a person understands the prescribed exercises and can perform them safely and competently. He explained that periodic review is important so that no "bad habits creep in or to adjust the exercise program...in terms of difficulty depending on the patient's needs".[84]
13. Mr Ashton then suggested that it could be appropriate for a clinician to effectively hold a person's hand and do exercises with them every day "if the motivational aspect was the biggest problem". He suggested that it was appropriate to involve himself in a patient's exercise programme every week because he is a "caring therapist".[85] In response to questioning from Counsel, Mr Ashton conceded he would expect to be paid for consults when following up with patients about their exercise.
14. The Tribunal found Mr Ashton to be an honest witness, however his evidence tended towards advocacy, particularly in circumstances where he had not treated or assessed the Applicant himself. Rather than conducting a walking test or some other form of objective assessment based on his training, qualifications and experience which could have assisted the Tribunal with its decision, Mr Ashton elected to express opinions on matters which were clearly outside his realm of expertise or direct knowledge. The Tribunal also observed Mr Ashton to adopt a somewhat paternalistic attitude regarding the level of involvement he should have in relation to motivating patients like the Applicant. The Tribunal places limited weight on his evidence for these reasons.

1. The Tribunal sought clarification from Ms Halligan at the start of the hearing whether she was a support worker, peer support worker or support coordinator, noting she adopted all three role descriptions across her statements. Ms Halligan confirmed she is the Applicant's support coordinator as well as his advocate. She indicated she does "pro bono" work for him.[86]
2. The Applicant was somewhat unclear whether he wanted Ms Halligan to give evidence or provide in-hearing support, alongside his disability advocate from ADEC. It was ultimately decided by the Applicant that he wanted the Tribunal to rely on her statements as assertions of fact, rather than submissions. Accordingly, the Respondent indicated they would require Ms Halligan for cross-examination.
3. The Tribunal asked Ms Halligan to remove herself from the hearing while the Applicant and the first witness Ms Kerley gave evidence on the first day. The Tribunal warned both the Applicant and Ms Halligan that they should not discuss their evidence. The Tribunal is satisfied Ms Halligan adhered to this request despite her evidence that the Applicant phoned her after the first day of hearing.
4. The Tribunal ensured documents referred to during the hearing were put on the screen for the Applicant to inspect so that he did not need Ms Halligan to locate documents in a hard-copy bundle.
5. Ms Halligan provided a response to targeted questions dated July 2024,[87] a statement regarding support coordination dated July 2024,[88]a response to IME report dated 2 October 2024,[89] and a letter from a support worker dated 12 February 2025.[90]
6. Ms Halligan is the sole director and shareholder of the company 'Zoee' which provides services to NDIS participants and those in receipt of aged care. Zoee is not a registered NDIS provider. She has a Master of Entrepreneur and Innovation and a Master of Business Administration, both from Swinburn University. She does not have an undergraduate qualification and it was unclear from her evidence what level of experience she has providing disability services.
7. In her July 2024 statement, Ms Halligan wrote:

When I first met, he was able to comfortably manage his supports and therapies but as time has progressed, he now struggles. When we arrange a catch up to discuss the tribunal, supports, therapies and general support with now, we must do it after Mohsin has had therapy and not for too long as he goes downhill very quickly. I am dealing with all Mohsin's supports, finding the right therapies, booking them in as well sorting the support workers that are needed. Reminding Mohsin of this therapy and making sure he is ready. Arranging reports were needed, finding people with Atypical Parkinson experience to assist Mohsin. This is why extra support coordination hours have been requested to 70 hours per annum. This would give me 1.35 hours a week. This will allow me to assist Mohsin with his needs to stay independent. > > I have found Mohsin struggles with the most basic of tasks like eating, drinking, talking, thinking and writing. It is terrible to see that the therapies that assist Mohsin to manage this disease have been taken away and the effect of this.[91]

8. In her February 2025 report, Ms Halligan wrote:

Mohsin has Atypical Parkinson which means that he cannot use medication to assist with his disability. That he relies on therapies to do what medication can not do. To loosen the muscles, manage pain, reduce the tremors, improve movement, reduce stress, improve circulation, reduce symptoms, over all improve his wellbeing.[92]

9. She went on to describe the benefits of the different therapies requested by the Applicant including neurofeedback, psychiatry, physiotherapy, remedial massage, hydrotherapy and myotherapy.[93] She also wrote:

Mohsin has found the tremors and curls in the right hand and arm, 3rd and 5th toes curl in. The trunk of the neck with headaches and sensitivity upper Cx, low back stiffness. With the Myotherapy is the only therapy that assists with this. Mohsin hand and toes uncurls, and movement get better and more manageable.[94]

10. Ms Halligan confirmed the Applicant requested she include certain things in her statement completed on 12 February 2025.[95] The Tribunal is satisfied that many of the issues that Ms Halligan expressed opinion on, particularly regarding the benefits of hand-on therapy were self-reported by the Applicant.
11. Ms Halligan expressed the view that there was a "huge discrepancy" between the OT reports completed by Ms Tivey and Ms Houston. She indicated she thought Ms Houston's report was biased and should have used the WHODAS 2.0.[96]
12. Ms Halligan said she could not recall speaking with Mr Ashton about physiotherapy reports. The Tribunal finds this difficult to accept, noting the 'back and forth' manner described by Mr Ashton in his evidence and Ms Halligan's other evidence that she was involved in arranging assessments and reports.[97]
13. Ms Halligan gave evidence that she assisted the Applicant to enrol in some short courses or community programs about 6 months ago which involved an online form, stating, "You know how you have a web page and you put in your name and the phone number and put in the request and then they call back and then discuss it with you, like a web form?" She also connected the Applicant with physiotherapist Mr Paul McCann, hydrotherapy and a couple of support workers.[98]
14. Ms Halligan confirmed, when directly questioned by the Tribunal at the end of her oral evidence, that she employees the Applicant's wife. She receives a commission for the 15 hours of support the wife is said to provide to the Applicant each week.[99]
15. The Tribunal asked about progress with the bathroom modifications. Ms Halligan confirmed the OT Ms Tivey would be involved. "What I do is organise when she's available, when Mohsin's available and...support if she needs me. But no, I don't get any further involved in that really". She indicated Ms Tivey had called about 2 or 3 weeks ago to discuss bathroom modifications and was visiting the Applicant the week after the hearing.[100]
16. Ms Halligan indicated all the support coordination funding has been utilised under the previous plan and she had spent a lot of time assisting the Applicant to prepare for the Tribunal proceedings, stating "most of it uncharged". When asked why she got involved in circumstances where the Applicant was assisted by a disability advocacy organisation, she said "because he couldn't read or write any of the responses and he was getting a lot of information that he couldn't understand". Ms Halligan confirmed she was aware the Applicant had an engineering degree but indicated she didn't know about his Master's degree.[101]
17. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Halligan was generally honest in response to questions asked of her at the hearing. However, it was concerning to the Tribunal that her apparent conflicts of interest were not more directly disclosed to the Tribunal prior to hearing, noting she was financially benefiting from the Applicant's plan.
18. The Tribunal is also concerned that professional boundaries and roles were not adhered to, with Ms Halligan involving herself in matters well beyond the core role of a support coordinator, which is to help NDIS participants connect with supports and services. Her evidence that she accompanied the Applicant to a particular service, no longer the subject of this review application, was perplexing and clearly not the role of a support coordinator.
19. As will be explored in further detail below, the Tribunal is satisfied that the concerns expressed by Ms Halligan and Mr Ashton regarding the assessment conducted by Ms Houston were baseless - there was nothing irregular about Ms Houston's functional capacity assessment. Rather, Ms Halligan's opinion about the assessment tends to demonstrate her lack of understanding about how functional capacity is assessed. The Tribunal observes there are no minimum qualifications required of support coordinators and relevant disability experience appears to be highly variable across the support coordination sector. The Tribunal is satisfied Ms Halligan largely relied on the Applicant's self-reports when making assertions about the benefits of therapy and that the Applicant exaggerated his functional limitations when in her company. The Tribunal places limited weight on Ms Halligan's evidence.

1. Mr McCann has a Bachelor of Science (Physiotherapy) and is registered with AHPRA. He provided a letter dated 10 February 2025.[102] He wrote the following:

Physiotherapy management will involve the use of massage and stretches in an attempt to manage Mr sheikh's rigidity and dystonia problems. In addition to this, regular attendance to hydrotherapy will allow for him to maintain his strength and mobility, through gentle exercise programs without putting too much stress on his joints and muscles which will have the adverse effects and increase his rigidity and dystonia.[103]

2. Mr McCann told the Tribunal he first met with the Applicant on 4 November 2024 and has had 11 sessions with him. He had not seen the Applicant since the 26 February 2025 and indicated it was his understanding this was because the Respondent wasn't paying for ongoing treatments. When asked by Counsel whether he knew the Applicant had about 60 hours of physiotherapy in his plan, Mr McCann confirmed he was unaware of that.[104]
3. Mr McCann provided an overview of the therapy provided in session:

So Mohsin's problem is to predominantly affect the right side of his body, his feet, legs and hand, chest, shoulder. So, what we do is we do some massage to try and decrease the tone in this area to try and settle him down. He has a pronounced shake in his right hand, tremor is the more accurate way to put it. So, what we do is we try and get some relaxation to the muscles through massage. We then proceed to doing some stretches of all the major muscles through both the feet, legs and and shoulder and arms, so to try and get some flexibility to maintain movement in those in that areas of his body.[105]

4. He explained that the major reason why physiotherapy is beneficial to the Applicant is because of problems associated with increased muscle tone and spasms which can restrict his range of movement and affects his ability to perform fine motor functions. Mr McCann recommended weekly physiotherapy to help reduce his muscle tone and range of motion through massage, passive mobilisation and stretching. He doubted whether pilates would be suitable for the Applicant because it would increase his muscle tone. Mr McCann explained that an increase in muscle tone is common in neurological conditions including Parkinson's because nerve supply to muscles is not normal and can result in dystonia or the muscles becoming rigid and tight.[106]
5. Mr McCann was adamant about the need for the Applicant to engage in self-management and exercises at home between sessions.

Just going purely to have physical interventions every day would not fix this. He would need to be doing his ongoing home stuff as well. And we've had this discussion many times, well at least a dozen times over the 11 times I saw him.[107]

6. He also suggested hydrotherapy as a water-based exercise therapy because it's low gravity. He also thought it important for the Applicant to engage with an exercise physiologist for dry land exercises, particularly one who deals with Parkinson's patients. He could not say how many sessions might be required - "that would be jumping into territory that's not really me".

Whatever happens in a clinical situation or a clinical setting is only a small portion of what's required. The individual, and this is with any condition or any injury or illness the person... needs to take some responsibility themselves for their role in their own rehabilitation.[108]

7. Mr McCann explained that he will usually take his patients to the pool and go through a series of exercises, for example, "walking up and down the pool repeatedly, forwards, backwards, sideways, trunk rotations, shoulder movements, using the assistance or the resistance of floats to allow, to increase strength".[109] He would spend 3 or 4 months with a patient experimenting and assessing what exercises the person can manage in the pool. After determining a clear program during that period, he expected the Applicant would be able to do pool sessions on his own at least a couple of times per week. Mr McCann indicated he would then need to see the Applicant about once a month to ensure things are going well and to adjust the exercise program.[110]
8. Mr McCann also recommended weekly hand-on sessions should continue during this period to work on mobility of the joints and stretching of the muscles. Mr McCann indicated that an additional session of massage each week might help to keep the Applicant's tone down, but said, "once again, once we started, we can reassess on the go, you know, and see what's required". Mr McCann indicated he thought there should be a central person to help oversee the various therapies and coordinate the sharing of information with the Applicant's practitioners, with either himself or an exercise physiologist well placed to undertake that role.[111]
9. The Tribunal understands Mr McCann's recommendation as follows:

(a) Approximately 12 sessions of hydrotherapy (initial program set-up). > > (b) 52 weekly sessions of hands-on physical therapy. > > (c) 9 check-in sessions to review hydrotherapy and other home exercises.

10. This totals 73 hours of physiotherapy per year.
11. The Tribunal found Mr McCann to be a refreshingly frank witness. He was observed to be knowledgeable, practical, independent, and highly experienced, providing persuasive explanations for his recommendations based on his expertise and professional judgement. Whilst it is ultimately a matter for the Applicant, Mr McCann appeared to be the type of practitioner capable of taking a lead role in terms of liaising with the Applicant's other practitioners to ensure treatments and therapies align. The Tribunal places considerable weight on his opinion.

Occupational Therapist (OT) / Hand therapist, Ms Melissa Whitten

1. Ms Whitten provided a report dated 4 November 2022[112], an undated letter,[113] a report dated 30 January 2025,[114] and a letter dated 21 February 2025.[115]
2. Ms Whitten confirmed she has been seeing the Applicant for about 4.5 years. She had not had any communication or correspondence with other treating practitioners during that time. Ms Whitten explained they usually have therapy every 2 to 4 weeks. She said the Applicant initially attended for tremors in right hand, tightness in fingers and difficulty extending tendons.[116]
3. She opined that when the tightness in the Applicant's right arm is more significant it impacts his communication, concentration and balance. Ms Whitten also opined that she notices the difference when the Applicant has attended a physical treatment within 24 hours prior to seeing her and that he will ask "do you think I've been to therapy?". She reported that the Applicant attends yoga and exercise classes which help maintain movement and strength in his body.[117] It was unclear to the Tribunal why tightness in the Applicant's right arm would impact his communication, concentration, and balance.
4. Ms Whitten explained that this year she has mostly focused on completing soft-tissue release down the Applicant's right arm, from the shoulder through to the hand. They have also completed stretching exercises to relieve tension through the thumb and radial side of the wrist. At home, she has recommended the Applicant completed exercises for "strengthening through the shoulder with the theory of trying to reduce any tension on the nerves and the fascia down the arm, strengthening through the triceps and stretching exercises through the elbow". Mr Whitten confirmed that her approach is based on the practice of therapist Alison Taylor who believes nerve and fascia tightness relate to tremors in the hand. This theory reportedly does not take account of the neurological features of Parkinson's disease. Ms Whitten said she had not seen another Parkinson's patient for a long time and "it wasn't a significant presentation. It was more focused on smaller things like managing small tremors in the hands".[118]
5. Ms Whitten told the Tribunal the Applicant should complete stretching each day and strengthening exercises every second day. She opined that the Applicant finds it quite challenging to remember to complete his exercises. Ms Whitten agreed that the Applicant could set a reminder on his phone and acknowledged she did not know how often the Applicant completes the stretching or exercises.[119] The Tribunal observed the Applicant repeatedly stretch and mobilise his right hand and arm with various bands and pieces of strengthening equipment, particularly on the first day of hearing.
6. Despite the Applicant's reported memory problems, Ms Whitten gave evidence that the Applicant had noticed there was a problem with her door handle and remembered to bring a screwdriver to tighten the screw at a follow-up session. She thought that occurred in 2024 but could not remember exactly.[120]
7. Ms Whitten recommended fortnightly therapy for the Applicant, totalling 26 hours per year.
8. The Tribunal found Ms Whitten to be an honest witness. It is unclear to the Tribunal whether the current methodology focused on nerve and fascia tightness is most appropriately utilised when treating patients with Parkinson's disease.

1. Ms Phi Van Houston is an OT with over 30 years experience and is registered with AHPRA. She has a Bachelor of Applied Science (OT) and a Masters of Gerontology from La Trobe University.
2. Ms Houston conducted an assessment with the Applicant over 5 hours on 16 April 2024 and prepared a report dated 13 August 2024. Her report was completed in accordance with the ART's Guideline on persons giving expert and opinion evidence.
3. Ms Houston made a correction to paragraph 78 of her report, clarifying "there was no obvious cognitive impairment in terms of thought processing, reasoning, memory or word finding during the five hour assessment".[121]
4. Ms Houston noted that the Applicant did not have any difficulty expressing his thoughts and whilst he did have some trouble finding the correct words to describe things on occasion, she attributed that to the fact that English is his second language rather than because of a specific cognitive impairment.[122] The Applicant was reported to sit on the floor eating toast and honey for breakfast at the start of the assessment.

The Applicant was observed to ambulate unaided throughout the house, wearing thongs as his footwear, and independently and safely completed transfers between sitting on the floor and the couch, office chair and lounge, dining chair and standing, and bed transfers. He was able to safely ascend and descend the stairs, alternating leg and holding on to the handrail to steady himself.[123]

5. Ms Houston's report noted the Applicant reported the following to her during the assessment:

(a) That traditional physiotherapy does not work so he was only doing exercises at home.[124] > > (b) That he has engaged with an OT and received recommendations for aid/equipment and home modifications but has no specific therapy program in place.[125] > > (c) That he is in receipt of the DSP and his wife receives a Carer payment and allowance from Centrelink.[126] > > (d) He catches up with friends on a weekly basis, usually on a Sunday and sometimes twice a week.[127] > > (e) He has a driver's license - "voluntarily went to have a driving assessment and passed".[128] > > (f) He studied in the UK, obtaining two Bachelor's degrees and a Master's degree.[129] > > (g) The Applicant was working full time in paid employment for the Red Cross before ceasing work completely in July 2021, a few months following his atypical Parkinson's diagnosis.[130] > > (h) The Applicant regularly attends day and evening community activity groups, including locations in Roxburgh Park, Broadmeadows and Glenroy and participates in short courses including conversational English classes and basic home maintenance. He volunteers with the Hume Council Community Group on the Community Board and Disability Advocacy group.[131] He independently participates in sessions with other participants.[132] > > (i) When he has 'hands-on' treatment or therapies, he is able to ride his push bike for 3 kilometres.[133] > > (j) He carries a pocket notebook and pen in his shirt pocket to jot down reminders. > > (k) He can complete fine motor tasks following hand-on therapy including remedial massage, myotherapy, osteotherapy.[134] > > (l) He showers everyday and his wife helps him with dressing sometimes as he has difficulty with zips and buttons.[135] > > (m) He is independent with toileting and grooming.[136] > > (n) He manages his own medications and finances.[137] > > (o) His wife completes domestic duties including cooking for the family, cleaning, vacuuming, laundry and shopping.[138] > > (p) The Applicant can tidy up after himself and occasionally loads the front loader washing machine under the kitchen bench.[139] > > (q) The Applicant reported he is not able to travel by public transport even though he lives close to a train station because he doesn't feel safe.[140] > > (r) He is registered with a Disability Employment Service (DES).[141]

6. Ms Houston made the following observations in her assessment:

(a) The Applicant was able to follow the conversation in an analytical manner and no tangentiality was noted. "He understood questions asked, and could identify the subtlety of some questions, and responded appropriately and timely, and asked appropriate questions in return".[142] > > (b) He operated his Samsung S10 mobile phone one handed with good dexterity.[143] > > (c) The Applicant has excellent command of the English language and spoke fluently and expressively.[144] > > (d) The Applicant reported feeling weary after the assessment however this was not observed and had it not been for a support worker picking him up at 2pm for a therapy appointment, he would have continued.[145] > > (e) The Applicant can communicate via text message and typing on his computer.[146] > > (f) The Applicant had minor difficulty swallowing when eating lunch if he was talking in between.[147] > > (g) He was observed to walk with normal gait including stride length and speed. He had symmetrical posture and no clawing of the right toes.[148] > > (h) The Applicant did not report a history of falls or near misses.[149] > > (i) "Whilst movements in the right hand was generally more rigid compared with the left hand, the Applicant was still able to use his right hand for selective tasks requiring fine motor control, for example, when gathering items for lunch, which required scooping/serving food, cooked by his wife and left in the fridge, and heating up in the microwave".[150] > > (j) A suction grab rail was attached to the glass in the shower, which was not considered appropriate or safe.[151] > > (k) An electronic massage chair, stationary bike and other pieces of exercise equipment such as bands and weights were available.[152] > > (l) The Applicant lives between 150 and 250 meters (depending on route) from a train station, which would take approximately 2 - 4 minutes to walk. The Hume community centre and Glenroy community hub are a 1 minute and 9 minute walk from the nearest train station. > > (m) The Applicant has the capacity to attend appointments and other engagements by himself, either by driving or public transport.[153] > > (n) The Applicant's OT Mr Raithaththa first recommended assistive technology and bathroom modifications on 24 November 2022 including a folding shower stool, grabrails, toilet chair, handheld reachers, sockaid and long handled shoe aid.[154] These recommendations had not been implemented. > > (o) The Applicant's previous support coordinator noted that the Applicant had particular preferences for how things are done, for example, requiring his support coordinator to attend hour long telehealth appointments. "Most of the support coordination time had been utilized to assist the Applicant with his AAT application, typing up statements on his behalf".[155] > > (p) It is not clear why the Applicant ceased work as he has the capacity for work with modification to work duties and hours, or the type of roles he could take on.[156] > > (q) "The Applicant prefers hands-on massages by a masseuse over a massage chair. Both options can provide the means to alleviate the physical symptoms of Parkinson's disease, however based on the Applicant's report it would appear that there are the added benefits of touch (sensual) and social interaction (social networking/connection) that he gets from attending a remedial massage session, particularly when the masseuse is a young female, which he would not be able to experience from having a massage therapy on a massage chair at home".[157] > > (r) Based on information shared by the Applicant, he has relied on others to do things for him all his life, apart from personal care tasks.[158] > > (s) Considers the day of assessment as representing base-line functioning on a day-to-day basis.[159]

7. Ms Houston made the following recommendations to improve the Applicant's functional capacity:

(a) Maintain hand function and dexterity by typing an email.[160] > > (b) Use larger or weighted pens to assist with writing.[161] > > (c) Use voice to text functions.[162] > > (d) Install a wall-mounted shower seat.[163] > > (e) Install grabrails for shower and toilet or toilet chair.[164] > > (f) Use a handheld reacher, sockaid and long handled shoe aid.[165] > > (g) Use a button hook and zip puller.[166] > > (h) A multidisciplinary allied health team comprising a psychologist, OT, physiotherapist and speech therapist would be beneficial because it would ensure consistency across disciplines to optimise outcomes for the Applicant.[167]

8. Ms Houston noted, "The Applicant also receives support from his wife for some personal care, specifically dressing task, however, with the right aid, he would be able to complete this independently".[168] She also wrote:

The Applicant reported that he has a support worker every day, for 3-3½ hours per day, to drive him to appointments. The Applicant did report that the support hours he has are not enough, especially when he has to go to visit friends who live in the Western suburbs and the support worker has to drive him there, wait for him whilst he visits with his friend and then drive him back.[169]

[I]t is reasonable for the Applicant to travel by public transport for many of the appointments and activities, or to be supported to resume his driving, which he said he did previously. Based on the Applicant's presentation and functional status, I am of the opinion that 22 hours per week for assistance with self-care and personal and domestic activities are excessive.[170]

Although no complementary therapies have been scientifically proven to slow, stop or reverse the development of Parkinson's, many people with Parkinson's use them as do gain positive experience complementary therapies such as better general health, decreased pain and improvements in mood... > > A comprehensive/multidisciplinary treatment approach is usually the most effective therefore rehabilitative therapies such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy should not be excluded as the focus of these treatments are to maintain independence with activities of daily living for as long as possible and also prevent complications from things such as injuries caused by falls or aspiration (inhalation of food) while eating.[171]

11. In her oral evidence, Ms Houston indicated she could not recall the Applicant mentioning anything about doing therapy or exercise prior to her 9am appointment or doing therapy the day prior. The Tribunal observes the Applicant did not file any evidence confirming his continued engagement with complimentary or alternative therapies, self-funded or otherwise, in 2024 or 2025.
12. Ms Houston explained that treating practitioners often use the WHODAS 2.0 to establish a baseline and then readminister it in 6 months' time to assess improvement or the effectiveness of treatment. She also explained that the Care and Needs Scale (CANS) is primarily focused on carer burnout and would usually be administered to a primary carer, such as the Applicant's wife however she was "not in the picture".[172]
13. She observed the Applicant stand from a seated position on the floor to make a coffee and then return and sit down on the floor. Ms Houston indicated her surprise the Applicant was wearing thongs, indicating that based on the briefing materials, she had expected to see him using a mobility aid, such as a walking stick or 4-pronged walker.[173] She explained she observed the Applicant text and scroll on his mobile phone with his left hand.
14. Ms Houston asked the Applicant to demonstrate using his computer and mouse. She indicated that when she requested him to do something, the tremor increases in his hand, whereas when he was not specifically asked to do things "it's minimal".[174] She also said the following in relation to food prepared by his wife:

And he was able to scoop food out of the pot or the casserole dish, put it into the microwave and heat it up. He was able to eat with his fingers in terms of pulling apart roti bread type bread and eating it using a spoon and also just with his fingers...[175]

15. Ms Houston noted that she had seen videos sent through the Applicant which demonstrated fine motor skills such as using both hands to sew in a straight line. He submitted these videos in support of his request for several hands-on therapy, which he asserts reduces his tremor and largely restores function in his right hand. However, she raised concerns that he appears to rely on others to do things for him that he could do himself "which is actually encouraging dependency on those services rather than independence".[176]
16. Ms Halligan questioned Ms Houston about whether she had contacted the Applicant's previous support coordinator without his permission. Having heard the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant provided informed consent and there was nothing irregular about the assessment conducted or Ms Houston contacting Ms Adams to obtain further information. Ms Houston also gave evidence that the Applicant requested she become his OT after the assessment, but she declined because of a clear conflict of interest.
17. The Tribunal asked Ms Houston to explain what level of impairment that would ordinarily achieve a score of 94% in life activities. She replied:

It means they can't do anything at all for themselves... I would be expecting him to not be able to mobilise around anywhere pretty much, you know, be having someone there 24/7... > > I see that as someone being in a wheelchair with not a lot of engagement and would have one to one...like someone 24/7 to feed them, to dress them [and who] may be able to participate in very simple instructions of OK, can you lift that? You know, can you pick up this pan and pen and put it on that side or whatever else rather then following a conversation for five hours.[177]

18. Ms Houston was surprised that a shower chair or stool had still not been installed. She explained that most shower chairs retail for approximately $120-150.
19. The Tribunal finds that Ms Houston was an honest witness and conducted a comprehensive assessment of the Applicant, employing a range of different methods to assess his functional capacity. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Houston has significant experience and advanced qualifications relevant to the matters to be decided. She was observed to be impartial and provided considered explanations for the conclusions reached in her report. The Tribunal places significant weight on her expert opinion, alongside Mr McCann.

1. The Applicant was reminded at the commencement of the hearing of the following:

Under s 54 and s105 of the ART Act, the Tribunal can exercise the powers given to the original decision maker. This includes the power to affirm the decision (which would have the effect of leaving things as they are), varying the decision or making a completely new decision about the supports that should or should not be included in Mr Sheikh's plan including the amount of any supports.[178]

2. Support coordination and support worker hours were not initially in dispute between the parties. Towards the end of the hearing, the Tribunal raised concerns with the Applicant that certain evidence may cause it to conclude that he does not need support coordination or support worker assistance.

1. The Applicant is currently funded for 70 hours of support coordination per year.
2. The Applicant is highly educated, has worked in a range of professional roles both in Pakistan and Australia and has been a NDIS participant for over 4 years. He engages with a range of supports and services, both NDIS and mainstream. He has a plan manager to arrange NDIS payments to service providers. As mentioned earlier in this decision, the Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant's experiences significant difficulties with his communication, memory, or cognitive function.
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has relied on Ms Halligan and his previous support coordinator to do a range of things that he could do for himself such as booking appointments, liaising with service providers, completing webforms and typing documents, albeit more slowly. Further, despite Ms Halligan's involvement for approximately 2 years and the Applicant's claim that he is at high risk of falls, an adequate shower chair has not been purchased or arranged.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the 70 hours of support coordination has been used predominantly for the purposes of preparing for these proceedings. This is puzzling in circumstances where the Applicant had advocacy assistance through ADEC. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant requires a support coordinator to help connect him with services and supports and therefore the ongoing provision of this support is not value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) or effective and beneficial pursuant to section 34(1)(d). Support Coordination hours should be removed from the Applicant's plan.

1. For similar reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's self-reported functional capacity was exaggerated for the purpose of obtaining higher levels of support. The Tribunal accepts Ms Houston's evidence as providing a reliable and accurate picture of the Applicant's baseline function. The Tribunal accepts that whilst the Applicant's functional capacity is somewhat affected in relation to some self-care tasks, it can be addressed by using commonly used pieces of equipment and assistive technology. These items were all recommended at least 2 years ago, and the Applicant has sufficient funding for low-cost assistive technology in his SOPS. Ms Houston gave evidence that the Applicant would not require support worker hours if he used those items. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant has ever undertaken regular household tasks, such as cooking and cleaning. These appear to have been performed by the Applicant's wife for many years. There was no evidence before the Tribunal about the contributions of the Applicant's adult children who live in the home.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant is unable to walk reasonable distances, noting that he lives very close to a train station and the community centres that he frequents are between a 2-minute and 12-minute walk from the nearest train station.[179] Ms Houston noted the Applicant walked around the home in his thongs and up and down stairs without difficulty. Ms Tivey noted "Mohsin does not use a walking aid and is capable of mobilising independently on level surfaces".[180] Physiotherapist Mr Polra noted the Applicant's falls risk was "minimal" and "no history of falls recorded".[181] He added that the Applicant "reports foot and ankle muscle fatigue after standing or walking for >10min".[182] Ms Houston noted the Applicant may feel more confident having a walker which he can use for a rest break when needed.[183] The Tribunal is satisfied that is something the Applicant can discuss further with his OT. A walker can be purchased using funding from his low-cost assistive budget.
4. The Applicant's assertion that he feels unsafe when using public transport did not persuade the Tribunal that there is a genuine reason why he is unable to use public transport on account of his Parkinson's disease. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is unable to drive. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's wife is available to drive him to some locations.
5. The Tribunal finds the Applicant does not require support worker assistance for assistance with daily living or to access the community. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that providing funding for support worker assistance is value for money or effective and beneficial. Sections 34(1)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act are not met.

1. The recent decision of FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114 sets out the relevant procedure for considering supports since the Amended Act came into effect on 3 October 2024.

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.

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The Applicant contended that items included in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Supports Rules represents supports that the Respondent generally does not fund, "but they are not permanently banned".[184]
6. Section 5(2) of the Transitional Supports Rules state:

For the purposes of subsection 10(4) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 2 to this instrument is not an NDIS support for any participant (subject to subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act) or prospective participant.

7. In FSWN, the Tribunal found there was no general discretion:

[54] For completeness, I will briefly address the operation of ss 10(6) to (8) of the principal Act as amended. In short summary, those provisions authorise the CEO to determine that a support that appears in the Table to Schedule 2, despite being in that Table, is a NDIS support for a participant, provided she is satisfied of various matters, and upon an application being made by a participant. That discretion is confined, however, by the 'replacement support determination' contained in Part 3, s 7 of the Transitional Rules.[185]

8. In VKKG and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] the Tribunal also addressed the question of discretion in relation to prescription spectacles or contact lenses in circumstances where the Applicant's visual impairment is complex and severe.

[28] Item 12(h) of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules, together with paragraph 34(1)(f) and section 10 of the NDIS Act, confers no general discretion that would enable the Tribunal to disregard Item 12(h). It is not open to the Tribunal to conclude, for example, that Item 12(h) should not apply to VKKG because special circumstances exist in VKKG's case, or because the supports that he seeks are otherwise reasonable and necessary. Any contention advanced on VKKG's behalf that the Tribunal can adopt that course is incorrect.[186]

9. The Tribunal will consider the relevant supports in line with the approach set out in FSWN.

Request 1 - 9 days (3 x 3 days per year) for short-term accommodation (STA)

1. For the reasons outlined above in relation to support coordination, support worker assistance and transport, the Tribunal is not satisfied this support is related to the Applicant's disability (rule 5.1). The Tribunal finds that STA is not needed by the Applicant on account of his disability and is therefore not value for money. Section 34(1)(c) is not met.
2. Request 2 - Mobile phone (consumables funding)
3. Schedule 2, Item 4(d) of the Transitional Supports Rules relevantly states:

Internet devices (such as modems and routers), land line phones, mobile phones (including smart phones), mobile phone accessories, tablets and sim cards.

4. The Tribunal finds a mobile phone is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. Schedule 2, Item 4(f) of the Transitional Supports Rules relevantly states:

Standard computers, standard computer accessories, consoles and games, and subscriptions for streaming services.

2. The Tribunal finds a laptop (see Item 4(f)) is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. The Tribunal observes that Mr McCann gave persuasive evidence about the role of hydrotherapy under the initial guidance of a physiotherapist. The Tribunal accepts Mr McCann's evidence about the importance of the Applicant undertaking regular exercise himself and taking responsibility for his own rehabilitation.
2. The Applicant did not explain why he was seeking 104 hours of hydrotherapy per week. There was no evidence that he has been attending a pool himself. Mr McCann's evidence suggests that after an initial period of guidance, the Applicant should be completing twice weekly sessions of hydrotherapy which does not require supervision beyond a monthly check-in. These hours are included below under physiotherapy.
3. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's request for 104 hours of hydrotherapy is not value for money in these circumstances. Section 34(1)(c) is not met.

Request 5 - 104 hours of complementary or alternative medicine (CAMs)

1. Schedule 2, Item 9(k) of the Transitional Supports Rules relevantly states:

2. The Tribunal finds alternative and complimentary medicine is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. Ms Houston described myotherapy in her report as:

an advanced form of remedial massage, also known as sports massage or medical massage. Myotherapists use a wider range of treatments and techniques, including some not generally incorporated into remedial massage, like myofascial cupping and dry needling, to relieve muscle tension, reduce pain and improve range of motion and also the underlying root causes (trigger point therapy). Myotherapy focuses on the treatment and management of musculoskeletal pain, tightness and restriction. Myotherapy is a specific form of soft tissue therapy that is focused on the treatment and management of musculoskeletal complaints that also incorporates education and exercise prescription to help patients manage their condition and prevent future injury.[187]

2. In her report, myotherapist Ms Julie Redmond indicated she first treated the Applicant from July to September 2021 and recommended 2 one-hourly sessions of myotherapy per week to improve the Applicant's physical function.[188] On 10 December 2022, Ms Redmond recommended myotherapy to increase the Applicant's physical endurance, maintain or improve his gait and balance and improve his sleep.[189]
3. Several other practitioners recommended regular myotherapy for the Applicant. Physiotherapist, Mr Manvir Polra noted in his report dated 28 November 2022 that the Applicant had not responded well to pharmacological interventions and recommended 3 x 1 hour sessions per week of myotherapy.[190]
4. Schedule 2 Item 10(a) of the Transitional Supports Rules states "massage that is not provided by an allied health professional for disability related purposes" is not a NDIS support. Therefore, massage provided by an allied health professional for disability related purposes could be a NDIS support.
5. Schedule 1 Item 34 of the Transitional Supports Rules provide:

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. This includes assessment by allied health professionals for support planning and review as required. (Tribunal's emphasis).

6. The Respondent contended that myotherapy is an alternative or complimentary medicine and is therefore not a NDIS support because of Schedule 2 Item 9(k).
7. Further, the Respondent relied on internal legal advice which identified a 2015 review by the Australian Department of Health and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) which resulted in the removal of private health insurance rebates for 17 therapies including "massage therapy or myotherapy".[191] The 'Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance' (Rebate on Natural Therapies Report) states:

It was difficult to find any RCT (randomised controlled trial) that specifically assessed the effectiveness of 'remedial massage', 'sports therapy massage' or 'myotherapy' for any clinical condition in the literature, and any attempt to assign the evidence to a particular massage therapy subgroup was fraught with complications. This was because many RCTs or SRs (systematic review) did not adequately describe the massage therapy technique employed, often only describing the frequency of the intervention (number of sessions per week or duration of each session), but not reporting on the intensity or depth of massage therapy, the method of applying touch, the theoretical framework underlying the intervention or the training and experience of the massage therapist. Hence, there was sometimes no clear distinction between the non-manipulative manual therapies conducted by massage therapists and the soft-tissue work done by chiropractors, physiotherapists and osteopaths, with a great deal of crossover between techniques often observed.[192]

8. In the Rebate on Natural Therapies Report, 'in-scope therapies' referred to 'natural', 'alternative' and 'complimentary' therapies which are:

offered through General Treatment cover under complying health insurance policies by private health insurance (PHI) that are not eligible to be subsidised directly under Medicare and are not provided by a health professional registered under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS).[193]

9. The Report further found that no systematic reviews were identified that assessed the effectiveness of myotherapy interventions that met the inclusion criteria for the overview.[195]
10. The Applicant filed a media release dated 7 November 2024 from the Myotherapy Association of Australia (MA) which announced that myotherapists are officially classified as allied health professionals under the NDIS, in anticipation of the legislative amendments.[196] The Tribunal observes a later statement on 17 December 2024 clarified:

On 7th November 2024, MA announced that Myotherapy was recognised under the NDIS based on written advice from the NDIA. > > On 26th November 2024, NDIA verbally retracted this statement, claiming the initial advice was inaccurate.[197]

11. The Tribunal understands that myotherapists are not registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Authority (AHPRA).
12. Schedule 1 Item 34 of the Transitional Supports Rules requires that the support be evidence-based. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that myotherapy is an evidence-based therapy.
13. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that myotherapy is an alternative or complementary medicine pursuant to Schedule 2 Item 9(f) and is excluded as a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

manual therapy that treats immediate problems and symptoms of general tightness and stiffness. The therapist will use a range of hands-on techniques to target deep layers of muscle and tissue. The massage is continuous without a break as pressure is applied to release any 'knot' in the muscle.[198]

2. In the Rebate on Natural Therapies Report mentioned above, the following conclusion was reached with respect to massage therapies which included remedial massage:

The quality of the evidence was very low for most of the outcomes assessed, and there were many other outcomes for which the evidence remains uncertain. Due to the paucity of good quality primary studies with sufficient sample size, or the lack of replication of study results, it was not possible to make any firm statements as to the effectiveness of massage therapy for many clinical conditions included in this overview.[199]

3. For the same reasons given in relation to myotherapy above, the Tribunal finds that remedial massage is an alternative or complementary medicine pursuant to Schedule 2 Item 9(f) of the Transitional Supports Rules and is excluded as a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. Ms Houston explained osteopathy in her report as a:

manual therapy like myotherapy that aim to address pain and discomfort in the body, but they differ in their approach and techniques used. Osteopathy focuses on the musculoskeletal system and aims to improve the overall health and function of the body. It is a form of complementary medicine that uses manual techniques such as mobilisation, manipulation, soft tissue, stretching, and other indirect gentle techniques to help restore the body's natural balance and function. The focus of the Osteopath is on improving the underlying causes of these symptoms, rather than simply treating the symptoms themselves. Osteopathy takes a holistic approach to healthcare and considers the whole person, including their physical, emotional, and social wellbeing.[200]

2. In his oral evidence, the Applicant could not recall when he commenced osteotherapy but claimed to go twice every week for about one year. He indicated Dr Joyce Caravas also gave him a schedule of activities including pilates to be completed under observation but could not recall how many sessions were completed.[201]
3. The Applicant filed a letter from Dr Caravas dated 14 November 2022. In that letter, Dr Caravas indicated the Applicant had commenced osteopathic therapy under her care one month prior, being October 2022. Noting the Respondent reduced the Applicant's capacity building funding in October 2022, leading to the current application for review, Counsel asked the Applicant whether it was possible he only started seeing an Osteopath in October 2022. The Applicant claimed he was going to different practitioners prior to Dr Caravas. The Applicant did not file any evidence from another practitioner in support of this claim.
4. Dr Caravas noted the Applicant experiences several symptoms including dystonia of the right upper limb, tremor and weakness in the right hand, clawing of the right toes, muscle hypertonicity, reduced mobility and pain of the right upper and lower limbs.[202] Dr Caravas noted the sessions had focused on hand-specific gripping, dexterity and range of motion exercises. She recommended weekly sessions and range of equipment including ergonomic mouse, pen grip, cordless stick vacuum, rocker knives, button hook, and zipper pull.[203]
5. Dr Caravas suggested "an immediate priority would be occupational therapy (OT) assessment with provision of aforementioned equipment to make home care and personal care tasks easier and more efficient - this is best organised by Mr Sheikh's case manager/support coordinator".[204] The Tribunal observes that Dr Caravas also recommended equipment like a button hook and zipper pull in November 2022- almost 2 years prior to Ms Houston. These recommendations were not followed by the Applicant.
6. There was no evidence of the Applicant engaging with an Osteopath under a chronic disease management plan, which are regularly arranged by a GP.
7. Schedule 2 Item 10(a) of the Transitional Supports Rules states "massage that is not provided by an allied health professional for disability related purposes" is not a NDIS support. Therefore, massage provided by an allied health professional, such as an Osteopath, for disability related purposes could be a NDIS support.
8. Schedule 1 Item 34 of the Transitional Supports Rules provide:

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. This includes assessment by allied health professionals for support planning and review as required. (Tribunal's emphasis).

9. The Tribunal understands Osteopaths are registered with AHPRA.
10. The Tribunal considers massage provided by an Osteopath could be a NDIS support and will therefore proceed to stage 2 of the assessment, as outlined in FSWN.[205]
11. Ms Caravas recommended twice weekly sessions of Osteopath, however the Applicant did not provide an updated report or call an Osteopath to give oral evidence. Ms Caravas' report indicated that the purpose of osteopathy was to improve hand motor skills and strength.[206]
12. The Tribunal accepts Mr McCann's evidence which recommended weekly hand-on sessions which would focus on mobility of the joints and stretching of the muscles. Mr McCann indicated that an additional session of massage each week might help to keep the Applicant's tone down, but noted "once again, once we started, we can reassess on the go, you know, and see what's required". The Tribunal understands that the Applicant receives hand therapy from OT Ms Whitten every 2 - 4 weeks, which has been a relatively long-standing arrangement and focuses specifically on his right arm, hand and wrist. Both practitioners emphasised the importance of stretching and exercise between hands-on therapy sessions, though it is unclear to the Tribunal whether the Applicant has followed these recommendations.
13. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that 104 hours of osteopathy is a duplication of supports contrary to rule 5.1(c) and is not value for money. Section 34(1)(c) is not met.

1. Schedule 2, Item 10(h) of the Transitional Supports Rules excludes somatic therapy as a NDIS support because it is not evidence based.
2. The Tribunal finds 52 hours of somatic therapy is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. Schedule 2, Item 13 (d) of the Transitional Supports Rules relevantly states:

Supports related to mental health that are clinical in nature, including acute, ambulatory or continuing care or rehabilitation.

2. For completeness, rule 7.7 of the Supports Rules state:

7.7 The NDIS will not be responsible for: > > (a) supports related to mental health that are clinical in nature, including acute, ambulatory and continuing care, rehabilitation/recovery; or > > (b) early intervention supports related to mental health that are clinical in nature, including supports that are clinical in nature and that are for child and adolescent developmental needs; or > > (c) any residential care where the primary purpose is for inpatient treatment or clinical rehabilitation, or where the services model primarily employs clinical staff; or > > (d) supports relating to a co-morbidity with a psychiatric condition where the co-morbidity is clearly the responsibility of another service system (eg treatment for a drug or alcohol issue).

3. The Tribunal finds 4 hours of psychiatry is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. Schedule 2, Item 10(e) of the Transitional Supports Rules excludes neurofeedback as a NDIS support because it is not evidence based.
2. The Tribunal finds 70 hours of neurofeedback is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. Schedule 2, Item 12 of the Transitional Supports Rules relevantly states:

(a) The diagnosis, early intervention and clinical treatment of health and dental health conditions, including ongoing or chronic health conditions;

(b) Diagnostic assessments and screening services.

1. For completeness, rule 7.5 of the Supports Rules state:

The NDIS will not be responsible for: > > (a) the diagnosis and clinical treatment of health conditions, including ongoing or chronic health conditions; or > > (b) other activities that aim to improve the health status of Australians, including general practitioner services, medical specialist services, dental care, nursing, allied health services (including acute and post-acute services), preventive health, care in public and private hospitals and pharmaceuticals or other universal entitlements; or > > (c) funding time-limited, goal-oriented services and therapies: > > (i) where the predominant purpose is treatment directly related to the person's health status; or > > (ii) provided after a recent medical or surgical event, with the aim of improving the person's functional status, including rehabilitation or post-acute care; or

1. The Tribunal finds 4 hours of neurology is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

Request 13 - 26 hours of neurolinguistic programming

1. Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a "set of principles and techniques aimed at enhancing self-awareness, increasing confidence, building communication skills, and motivating positive social actions".[207]
2. Ms Halligan reported that NLP "assisted him in taking control of his thoughts, feelings and behaviours which improved his symptoms and wellbeing".[208] The Tribunal is satisfied this was self-reported by the Applicant.
3. While there were numerous references to neurofeedback therapy across the evidence, the Tribunal could not locate any evidence of a practitioner recommending NLP. It remains unclear if there is any difference between the two forms of therapy. If it is essentially the same as neurofeedback therapy, then NLP is excluded as a NDIS support by Schedule 2 Item 10(e).
4. If NLP is a different type of therapy, the Tribunal is satisfied that the purported benefits of NLP, such as increasing self-awareness, confidence, communication skills and positive social actions are achievable through psychology supports, which is an evidenced-based therapy. NLP would therefore duplicate the psychology supports in the Applicant's SOPS contrary to rule 5.1 of the Supports Rules. NLP cannot be funded.

Request 14 - 52 hours of lifestyle and job coach

1. The evidence in support of a lifestyle and job coach was limited. In a letter dated 1 August 2022, Ms Monika Polemicos, a clinical hypnotherapist and psychotherapist wrote:

Mr Sheikh presents to be a highly motivated individual when it comes to improving his current situation despite these barriers and setbacks. Mr Sheikh identified the following therapeutic and personal support goals as part of the 13 session Personal Freedom Program with HypnoLAB: > > • Career coaching including identifying suitable career path that is flexible and compatible with Mr Sheikh physical abilities > > • Strategy and planning on how to achieve that career plan > > • Sleep independence and routine. > > • Physical health care routine including exercise and training. Building bladder > > control/stamina. > > • Self-care and self-reliance skills; building independence with daily tasks. > > • Identifying pathways for financially stability > > • Emotional and therapeutic intervention with regards to trauma history, interpersonal conflicts > > • Anxiety relief tools > > • Mental health support > > • Personal growth and ego strengthening with regards to building new identity.[209]

2. Clinical psychologist, Ms Shagufta Riaz referred to "support sessions with career / life coach to manage and navigate through the sudden changes he is going through (hypnolab)".[210]
3. The Respondent submits that the Applicant is eligible to obtain supports from a Disability Employer Services (DES) provider and other Commonwealth employment programs routinely accessed by people in receipt of a Centrelink payment.
4. In relation to the goals that focus on employment and training, Schedule 2 Item 18 of the Transitional Rules provide that the following are not a NDIS support:

(a) Government funded employment programs, including Disability Employment Services and Workforce Australia

...

(f) employment programs, including both disability-targeted and open employment services, to provide advice and support to job seekers with disability who are largely independent once placed in employment to find and retain a job;

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the limited evidence that the proposed job coaching falls within the meaning of Schedule 1 Item 4 regarding supports that build a participant's capacity to successfully prepare for, find, or keep employment in the open labour market (including self-employment and micro-enterprise) or the supported labour market.
2. The Respondent contends that support for "life coaches, wellness coaches, career coaches or cultural coaches" are not a NDIS support because of Schedule 2 Item 10(c) of the Transitional Supports Rules. The Tribunal agrees and section 34(1)(f) is not met.
3. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the purpose of the lifestyle and job coach overlaps with other supports currently provided in the Applicant's SOPS through psychology, physiotherapy and OT and therefore represents a duplication of supports contrary to rule 5.1(c) of the Supports Rules. A lifestyle and job coach cannot be funded.

1. Ophthalmology refers to a branch of medicine specialising in eye diseases and conditions.
2. Schedule 2, Item 12 of the Transitional Supports Rules relevantly states:

The diagnosis, early intervention and clinical treatment of health and dental health conditions, including ongoing or chronic health conditions; > > Diagnostic assessments and screening services.

3. The Tribunal finds 10 hours of opthalmology is not a NDIS support. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

Request 16 - Funding to build a 'wellness room'.

1. Clinical psychologist Ms Riaz supported "a wellness area in garage for his personal space".[211] Driving OT, Dev Raithaththa, recommended the Applicant have "sliding doors installed in his home office to provide privacy...so he can attend appointments and spend time with his support workers without disturbing his family".[212] Physiotherapist, Mr Ashton opined that:

the proposed wellness space is not merely a recreational area but rather a vital tool in Mr. Sheikh's self-directed health maintenance journey, providing him with a private and focused environment where he can engage in targeted exercises, therapeutic activities, and mindfulness practices tailored to his specific needs.[213]

[110] Ms Houston reports that the Applicant is seeking funding for home modification to erect a wall in the double garage to make it into two sections, effectively making it a single garage with a gym room so that he can move his gym equipment out of the sitting room. Ms Houston opines that it is not reasonable for the Applicant to expect the Respondent to fund for the home modification that he is seeking, and explains that this is because she considers the gym equipment can be moved to the garage without the garage needing to be converted. Ms Houston also opines that many homes with a home gym have their equipment housed in the garage and that she considers it would be reasonable for the Applicant to self-fund a portable screen to provide privacy. > > [111] The Respondent contends that it is unclear why the Applicant is unable to set up his computer within a room where he could close the door, or close the doors to the garage or utilise a portable screen while he engages in therapeutic strategies. > > [112] The Respondent also contends that the Applicant's therapeutic strategies and functional supports need to be implemented across all areas of the Applicant's home environment in order to improve his independence and daily function, therefore, it is unclear what additional benefit is to be achieved through the implementation of supports in privacy. > > [113] Therefore, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied that the criteria in sections s 34(1)(c) and (d) of the Act are met for this requested funding.[214]

3. With respect to the issue of sliding doors and/or the erection of a screen in the garage, it appears the primary purpose is privacy and improving the property currently shared by 5 people, 4 of whom are adults. The Tribunal is of the view that these are day-to-day living costs as set out in Schedule 2 Item 1 which include:

(c) Standard home security and maintenance costs, fencing, gates, and building repairs;

...

(e) Standard home repairs, home improvements, standard renovations and maintenance;

...

(j) Standard furniture, fixtures or fittings.

1. The Tribunal finds the proposed home modifications are not a NDIS support pursuant to Schedule 2, Item 1(e) and they represent standard home improvements and renovations. Section 34(1)(f) is not met.

1. As mentioned above, the Respondent funded 60 hours of physiotherapy prior to hearing.
2. The Applicant indicated during the hearing that he was seeking an additional 58 hours of physiotherapy. The exact basis for this request was unclear.
3. The Tribunal places significant weight on the evidence of Mr McCann. He recommended the following mix of hydrotherapy, hands on physical therapy and review of exercises for the Applicant:

(a) Approximately 12 sessions of hydrotherapy (initial program set-up). > > (b) 52 weekly sessions of hands-on physical therapy. > > (c) 9 check-in sessions to review hydrotherapy and other exercises.

4. This totals 73 hours of physiotherapy per year.
5. The Tribunal accepts the support is necessary to address the needs of the Applicant arising from an impairment which meets the disability requirements. Section 34(1)(aa) is met.
6. The Tribunal accepts the support will assist the Applicant to pursue his goals and aspirations including rehabilitating his limbs to sustain his independence.[215] Section 34(1)(a) is met.
7. The Tribunal accepts the support will assist the Applicant to undertake activities to facilitate his social and economic participation by increasing his strength and stamina to socialise with friends, family, and his community groups. Section 34(1)(b) is met.
8. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the proposal by Mr McCann is value for money in that it combines regular hands-on therapy with guidance and supervision to increase the Applicant's capacity and confidence to self-manage his impairments and associated functional limitations. It seems that once a good hydrotherapy and exercise practice is established, these hours can most likely be reduced. Section 34(1)(c) is met.
9. The Tribunal accepts that Mr McCann's recommendations are likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, particularly if he follows the advice to engage in regular self-management at home and attends twice weekly hydrotherapy for the duration of the year. The Applicant repeatedly emphasised his desire for regular hands-on therapy and to build his independence. The Tribunal is satisfied Mr McCann's plan responds appropriately to the Applicant's aspirations and compliments the other supports contained in the SOPS. Section 34(1)(d) is met.
10. This support requires specialist training and cannot be provided by families or informal networks. Section 34(1)(e) is met.
11. The Tribunal is satisfied physiotherapy is a NDIS support for the applicant. Section 34(1)(f) is met.
12. The Tribunal is satisfied that 73 hours of physiotherapy is reasonable and necessary pursuant to the legislative criteria and rules and should be funded.

[1] See Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth).

[8] 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.

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

[13] [2021] FCA 1359

[32] Subitem 129(2) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that if a statement of participant supports is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, the amendments apply irrespective of whether the Applicant's plan came into effect before, or on or after commencement.

[33] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at [202].

[34] For example, Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165 at [68] (North, Tracey and Mortimer JJ).

[36] National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth).

[37] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at [635].

[38] Dated 28 March 2025 and 2 December 2024 respectively.

[80] Mr Ashton's oral evidence. See also JHB, p469.

[185] FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114

[186] VKKG and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 789

[190] JHB, p80. A summary of other practitioners recommending myotherapy are set out in the Respondent's statement of facts, issues and contentions (SOFIC) - see E15, p13-14.

[192] Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p93-94. See - https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20191107151136/https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phi-natural-therapies

[197] https://www.myotherapy.org.au/Article?Action=View&Article_id=74

[205] FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114