The Applicant, ZTDG, seeks review of an internal review decision made on 3 March 2024 ('Decision Under Review')[1] by a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer ('CEO') of the National Disability Insurance Agency ('NDIA'), confirming an earlier decision made on 8 January 2024 by a different delegate of the CEO to refuse ZTDG's request to access the National Disability Insurance Scheme ('NDIS').[2]
ZTDG says she has various impairments as a result of having the conditions of:

ZTDG states that these impairments have arisen in a complex setting of alleged domestic violence by her ex-husband dating back to 11 June 2007,[3] and also sexual abuse perpetrated by ZTDG's ex-husband directed towards their child ('C'), when C was an infant.
ZTDG considers that she meets the access criteria under s 21 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) ('NDIS Act'), specifically, because she meets the "disability requirements" under s 24 and/or the "early intervention requirements" under s 25 of the NDIS Act. The NDIA contends otherwise.
On 8 March 2024, ZTDG lodged an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT').[4] On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal ('this Tribunal') following the abolition of the AAT. Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024, are to be continued and finalised by this Tribunal. Anything done in relation to this proceeding before 14 October 2024, is taken to have been done by this Tribunal. Neither party disputed that this Tribunal has authority to deal with the present application.
The Tribunal has authority to undertake this review under s 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ('ART Act'), operating in conjunction with s 103 of the NDIS Act.
In this proceeding and at the substantive hearing, ZTDG was not legally represented, however, she was assisted by a disability advocate from Disability Advocacy & Complaints Services of South Australia Inc ('DACSSA'). The NDIA was represented by Ms Batiste of counsel, two lawyers from Sparke Helmore Lawyers, an NDIA case manager and an NDIA internal lawyer.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal has found that ZTDG has some impairments but that none of them are, or are likely to be, permanent. The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review because she does not meet the "disability requirements" under s 24 of the NDIS Act, or the "early intervention" requirements under s 25, and so does not meet the access criteria under s 21.

The primary issue arising for consideration in this application is whether ZTDG meets the access criteria under s 21 of the NDIS Act.
The NDIA accepts that ZTDG meets the "age requirements" under s 22, and the "residence requirements" under s 23 of the NDIS Act.
Accordingly, the focus of this application is whether ZTDG meets either the "disability requirements" under s 24 of the NDIS Act, or the "early intervention requirements" under s 25 of the NDIS Act. ZTDG contends that she meets either or both of those requirements, however, the NDIA contends that ZTDG does not meet either of those requirements.
The Tribunal will need to decide whether ZTDG has any impairments which meet the requirements under subsection 24(1)(a) (or subsections 25(1)(a)(i) or (ii)) of the NDIS Act) and if so, to identify any such impairments. In the NDIA's SFIC, it contended that ZTDG has the following impairments:[5]

(a) impairments to which psychosocial disabilities are attributable, namely, MDD and PTSD; > > (b) neurological impairments in the form of right lower side weakness and non-epileptic seizures; and > > (c) sensory impairment in the form of pain in lower limbs, hips and shoulders.

The Tribunal also will need to decide whether any one or more of ZTDG's impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent, under subsection 24(1)(b) (or subsections 25(1)(a)(i) or (ii)) of the NDIS Act. In the NDIA's SFIC, it contended that on the evidence before the Tribunal, none of ZTDG's impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent.[6]
The NDIA further contends that even if one or more of ZTDG's impairments are found to be permanent, or likely to be permanent, that ZTDG does not meet the required threshold under subsection 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act because her impairment/s do not result in "substantially reduced functional capacity" in ZTDG undertaking any one or more of the six prescribed activities under subsections 24(1)(c)(i) to (vi) of the NDIS Act, namely, "communication", "social interaction", "learning", "mobility", "self-care" and/or "self-management" (to be referred to collectively in this Statement of Reasons as the 'Prescribed Activities').
If the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the criteria under subsections 24(1)(a), (b) and (c) are met, the Tribunal will need to decide whether ZTDG's impairments affect her capacity for social and economic participation under subsections 24(1)(d) and (e) of the NDIS Act.
Regarding the early intervention requirements under s 25 of the NDIS Act, if the Tribunal concludes that the mandatory criterion under subsection 25(1)(a) has been met (in this case, relating to whether any of ZTDG's impairment/s are, or are likely to be, permanent), it will also need to decide:

(a) whether the remaining two mandatory criteria under subsection 25(1)(b) and (c) of the NDIS Act have been met; and if so, > > (b) whether the circumstances prescribed in subsection 25(3) of the NDIS Act apply to ZTDG to otherwise exclude her from meeting the early intervention requirements.

Section 21 of the NDIS Act provides that a person satisfies the access criteria if they meet:

(a) the "age requirements" under s 22; > > and, at the time of considering the access request; > > (b) the "residence requirements" under s 23 of the NDIS Act; and > > (c) the "disability requirements" under s 24 or the "early intervention requirements" under s 25.

The NDIS Act was amended by the enactment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 including provisions dealing with eligibility to access the NDIS. These amendments apply to access requests under s 18 of the NDIS Act made after the date of effect of these legislative changes, that is, on or after 3 October 2024. ZTDG's access request was made before 3 October 2024_._ Accordingly, the Tribunal must undertake its review of the Decision Under Review based on s 24 and s 25 of the NDIS Act as those provisions were worded before the legislative changes took effect on 3 October 2024.[7]
The applicable rules dealing with eligibility to be granted access as a participant in the NDIS are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (Cth) ('Access Rules').
The NDIA has issued guidelines relating to the consideration of requests for access to the NDIS made before 14 October 2024, namely, National Disability Insurance Agency, NDIS Operational Guidelines: Applying to the NDIS (Guidelines, 14 October 2024) ('Access Guidelines').

On 18 March 2024, the NDIA lodged a set of documents with the Tribunal pursuant to s 37 of the former AAT Act, totalling 239 pages ('T-Documents').[8]
On 30 May 2024, ZTDG's disability advocate lodged with the Tribunal. and gave to the NDIA, the following list of ZTDG's treating practitioners:[9]

(a) Dr NL (ZTDG's treating general practitioner);[10] > > (b) Neurology Clinic C, Registrar Neurologist, Medical Centre F[11] (described by the disability advocate as "the treater for FND"); > > (c) Ms JP, Director of Women's Empowerment Program,[12] conducted at Community Centre[13] ('CC') (described by the disability advocate as "the treater for PTSD"); and > > (d) Ms PS[14] (described by the disability advocate as "the treater for PTSD").

ZTDG also lodged the following documents with the Tribunal:

(a) open letters authored by Ms JP dated 14 September 2023 and 11 June 2024,[15] outlining the supports and treatments with which ZTDG has engaged; > > (b) a Statement of Lived Experience authored by ZTDG (undated/unsigned and lodged with the Tribunal on 8 July 2025) ('ZTDG's SLE'); and > > (c) a Witness Statement by ZTDG's close friend, Ms VL ('Ms VL's Witness Statement').

On 1 April 2025, ZTDG lodged with the Tribunal, a document which is akin to a statement of facts, issues and contentions ('ZTDG's SFIC') which the Tribunal has carefully considered.
On 7 July 2025, the NDIA lodged a joint hearing tender bundle ('JHTB'), totalling 358 pages.[16] This set of documents was received into evidence in this proceeding.[17]
On 23 July 2025, the NDIA lodged a supplementary hearing tender bundle ('Supplementary HTB')[18] including information about other general service systems and programs which the NDIA suggests that ZTDG may engage with, to receive certain supports and interventions.
The substantive hearing of this application took place over five days on 30 and 31 July 2025 and on 1, 5 and 14 August 2025.
On the first day of the hearing, ZTDG joined the videoconference by audio only (not by video), and informed the Tribunal that:

(a) she was in hospital and had been admitted on the previous day; > > (b) she did not expect to be released from hospital for the next day or two, but that "hopefully with luck" and "depending on specialist analysis" that she may be released later that evening (that is, on 30 July 2025) and if not, she would not be released until the following morning; and > > (c) despite those circumstances, ZTDG said she was happy to "try to push forward" and advised there "may or may not be specialists in the room" with her.

The Tribunal asked ZTDG to explain what had caused the hospital admission. ZTDG said it was caused due to her having "bouts of phantom smells, dizziness, and unsteadiness on her feet". ZTDG said it has "resulted in a fall" and "an episode while driving". When asked, ZTDG clarified that by the term "episode", she was referring to having an "absent seizure". ZTDG said that the episode occurred on Sunday, 27 July 2025 in the late afternoon. ZTDG said that at the time of the episode, she had "been up the road to get dog food" for her assistance dog.
When asked, ZTDG said this episode did not result in a car accident because she was still conscious enough to be able to pull over and park her car. ZTDG said that when she was lucid again, she sought assistance from Dr NL. ZTDG said she spoke to Dr NL during a telehealth appointment on Sunday, 27 July 2025 and subsequently saw him in person at his surgery on the afternoon on Monday, 28 July 2025, at which time, she said he advised her to be admitted to hospital.
ZTDG lodged a copy of a letter by Dr NL dated 28 July 2025, referring ZTDG to Medical Centre F (A&E). This referral letter stated that:

(a) Dr NL had organised an MRI of ZTDG's brain, which he described the results as being "essentially clear". The radiological report of this scan was embedded within the letter and concluded as follows: "No acute or structural intracranial abnormality is demonstrated. No evidence of demyelination"; > > (b) Dr NL had requested assistance to arrange for an urgent neurology assessment of ZTDG; > > (c) Dr NL set out a "problem list" in this letter, which included: > > > (i) on 7 December 2023, FND; > > > > (ii) on 16 August 2023, respiratory tract infection; > > > > (iii) on 27 April 2023, lumbo-sacral back pain; > > > > (iv) on 20 June 2022, Bell's Palsy; > > > > (v) on 2 December 2020, migraine; > > > > (vi) on 30 September 2020, endometriosis; > > > > (vii) on 10 December 2018, right Bell's Palsy; > > > > (viii) asthma (no date specified); > > > > (ix) PTSD (no date specified); > > (d) there was no mention in this letter of ZTDG having the problem of depression or any types of seizures, nor any other condition (apart from those mentioned in the above subparagraph); and > > (e) Dr NL stated that ZTDG's medications, as of 28 July 2025, included Amlodipine, Duloxetine, Emgality, Imigran, Lyrica, Mirena IUD, Palexia, Panadeine, Topiramate, Valium and Valsartan.

ZTDG said she was admitted to hospital that same evening and had been at the hospital since Monday, 28 July 2025.
When asked what had taken place while she was admitted to hospital, ZTDG told the Tribunal that she thought that she had "multiple doctor consults, physio consults", and that she was due to have a "physiotherapy and occupational therapy consultation" at the hospital that day (on Wednesday, 30 July 2025).
On this first morning of the scheduled hearing, ZTDG informed the Tribunal she had "constant dizziness", a "bit of confusion" and "complete overall vagueness". ZTDG informed the Tribunal that she wished to press on with the hearing but that she could not participate in the hearing by video because she did not have access to a Wi-Fi connection and her mobile phone connection would not permit her to join by video. When asked, ZTDG informed the Tribunal there was another patient in the same hospital room with her.
While the matter was adjourned momentarily, allied health practitioner/s at the hospital conducted an assessment of ZTDG. When the hearing resumed, ZTDG said that she had been told she would be discharged from the hospital that evening. Ms Batiste took instructions from the NDIA about these circumstances. The NDIA suggested that it might be best to stand the hearing over until the following morning.
The Tribunal decided that rather than adjourn the hearing that day, that it would adjust the order of witnesses to give evidence. The Tribunal decided that instead of hearing evidence from ZTDG and Ms PS that day, as had been planned, that ZTDG's proposed lay witness, Ms VL, who is a close friend of ZTDG, would be called as a witness that afternoon, that is, on 30 July 2025. The reason for changing the order was to minimise the amount of talking that ZTDG would be required to do while she was at hospital in the presence of a fellow patient. The parties were content with this course and so it was adopted.
On 30 July 2025, the Tribunal asked ZTDG to obtain a hospital discharge summary when she was discharged from the hospital. ZTDG undertook to do so. On 4 August 2025, ZTDG lodged a hospital discharge summary in respect of her admission between 28 to 30 July 2025 ('Discharge Summary').[19] The Discharge Summary shows that it was completed and printed on 30 July 2025. Notably, it does not make any notation about ZTDG having experienced an episode or seizure, which she said had occurred on 27 July 2025.
In the Discharge Summary, the "ED Consultant", Dr VC,[20] summarised his assessment of ZTDG as follows:

Took over this morning at 8:00 AM. > > Noted presentation and progress. > > Also noted complex background including Functional disorders. > > Had recent MRI Brain a week ago and was normal. > > On review this morning, [ZTDG] appears well objectively however she reported no change in her symptoms > > Seen by Physiotherapist team and were happy with [ZTDG'S] function > > Assured and discharged > > To have follow up by her GP and Neurology team as an outpatient

ZTGD also lodged the following additional documents:

(a) 4-page "mindDog" Public Access Test ('PAT') Psychiatric Assistance Dog completed assessment dated 9 April 2025 in respect of ZTDG's assistance dog; > > (b) letter from "mindDog" dated 4 August 2025[21] together with a PAT report dated 4 April 2025, issued by MindDog in respect of ZTDG's assistance dog;[22] > > (c) letter/clinical note by Dr YZ, Neurology, Medical Centre F, dated 3 May 2023 in respect of ZTDG's Botox injections ('Dr YZ's Letter'). Dr YZ's Letter describes that ZTDG's HFS has improved and her migraines were better (specifically, they had increased for one week after the injection and subsequently, occurred about once a week, increasing again only in the last two weeks before the next injection). There was a note in Dr YZ's Letter that ZTDG was advised to present to "ED" to be assessed for cord compression "with the patient agreeing". Dr YZ's Letter also refers to nerve conduction studies having been performed on ZTDG, showing no evidence of carpel tunnel syndrome ('CTS'); > > (d) letter from Dr AC, Medical Officer, Neurology, Medical Centre F, to Dr NL dated 23 May 2023 (regarding her visit on 10 May 2023). Dr AC's letter mentions the referral made of ZTDG to present to emergency to investigate spinal cord compression due to her reported right leg pain and urinary incontinence. This document noted that ZTDG was "required to pick [C] her daughter up from school emergently" (being the reason why she was unable to go to emergency as advised). In this letter, Dr AC described ZTDG's incontinence issues and the timing of the onset of the right leg symptoms, describing "intense pain at the hip and knee". Dr AC also reported that ZTDG's diarrhoea and faecal urgency "may have worsened recently". Dr AC stated that ZTDG's HFS and her migraines had "significantly improved with her Botox injections" and that she had not experienced any further functional seizures. Dr AC stated that ZTDG had been able to return to driving a car.

ZTDG arranged for Dr NL to give evidence at the hearing. By the time he was called to give evidence, the reception at the clinic advised the Tribunal that Dr NL had left the clinic for the day. An indication was given that Dr NL would be available to give evidence instead, on 5 August 2025. The Tribunal granted a short adjournment to allow an opportunity for ZTDG to call her treating general practitioner to give evidence in support of her application.[23] To streamline matters, the Tribunal asked the parties to prepare a joint list of questions to send to Dr NL in advance of the resumed hearing.
At the resumed hearing on 5 August 2025, the Tribunal was informed by ZTDG's disability advocate that Dr NL had contacted him to advise that he was no longer willing to attend the hearing that day, stating that he required more time to:

(a) consider the list of questions which had been sent to him by the parties on 4 August 2025; and > > (b) that he would "need to be given sufficient time to be able to answer them at the hearing".

ZTDG's disability advocate advised the Tribunal that Dr NL had indicated that he was willing to attend the hearing (voluntarily) to give evidence on 14 August between 1pm and 2pm. As a consequence, ZTDG sought another adjournment so that she could call Dr NL as a witness at the time that he had stipulated. The Tribunal sought the NDIA's view. The NDIA did not object, nor consent to the proposed short adjournment. The Tribunal granted the short adjournment to afford procedural fairness to ZTDG given the short period of the adjournment requested. The final day of the hearing took place on 14 August 2025 and Dr NL made himself available for one hour to give evidence. The parties made their closing submissions on 14 August 2025.
Over the course of the hearing of this application, the following witnesses gave evidence:

(a) on behalf of ZTDG: > > > (i) Ms VL (lay witness); > > > > (ii) ZTDG (lay witness); > > > > (iii) Ms JP; > > > > (iv) Ms PS; > > > > (v) Dr NL (medical witness); and > > (b) on behalf of the NDIA; > > > (i) Mr Pl (clinical witness), Occupational Therapist, engaged by the NDIA to undertake an independent functional capacity assessment ('FCA') of ZTDG on 9 August 2024 (see detailed report dated 11 September 2024) ('Ms Pl's OT Report').

The following additional documents were received by the Tribunal:

(a) the list of questions put to Dr NL by the parties before he gave oral evidence; > > (b) documents produced by Ms PS at the request of the Tribunal at the hearing, comprising: > > > (i) a bundle of Ms PS's clinical notes;[24] and > > > > (ii) invoice/s in respect of services provided by Ms PS to ZTDG;[25] and > > (c) an incident report dated 29 February 2024 completed by Ms JP, in respect of an incident described as a "seizure" which occurred in a meeting room at the CC.[26]

ZTDG is 40 years old.[27] The NDIA accepts that ZTDG meets the "age requirements" under s 22. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that ZTDG meets the "age requirements" under s 22 of the NDIS Act. The NDIA also accepts that that ZTDG meets the "residence requirements" under s 23 of the NDIS Act and the Tribunal finds accordingly.
ZTDG is originally from New South Wales. She does not have any contact with her biological parents. ZTDG began living with her foster mother when she was aged 16 months. ZTDG's foster mother and stepfather live in New South Wales. ZTDG has a good relationship with them and will visit them regularly, usually at Christmas time.
ZTDG was previously married and had one child from the marriage, C. ZTDG separated from her ex-husband in about 2015/2016. ZTDG reported that her relationship with her ex-husband was abusive. ZTDG's ex-husband has been convicted of sexual offences perpetrated against C when C was an infant. When ZTDG subsequently became aware of this, she experienced distress and trauma. Since that time, ZTDG has felt an enormous sense of guilt about what has happened to C because she felt that she did not protect C from the sexual assault. ZTDG's ex-husband is presently incarcerated following convictions against him for the crimes he committed against C.
ZTDG considers that these distressing and traumatic experiences have been the genesis of many of her reported health issues which she says has resulted in her impaired capacity to undertake activities of daily life and to engage with the community.
C is now about 11 years old. C is reported to be an NDIS child participant and has impairments arising from the conditions of autism spectrum disorder ('ASD'), Level 2, PTSD and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ('ADHD'). C is verbal, has friends, and attends a mainstream school near ZTDG's and C's home. C is also involved in horse riding and Ms VL described C as performing well in this activity.
C lives with ZTDG and their two dogs and cat. ZTDG informed the Tribunal that one of their dogs is ZTDG's assistance dog and the other dog is undergoing training to become C's assistance dog. ZTDG and C live in a three-bedroom, one-bathroom rental property with a large backyard,[28] in a small town in South Australia about one hour's drive away from Adelaide. ZTDG relocated to this small town from New South Wales with her ex-husband, originally in 2007.

ZTDG finished high school and completed an apprenticeship as a chef. ZTDG went on to work at a catering company for three years.[29] ZTDG's work background included commercial cooking and administration. More recently, ZTDG was successful in operating a small balloon scultping business. ZTDG gave evidence that she had to cease this business and that that it is no longer active.
ZTDG has volunteered in several roles but says she has ceased doing so, as her conditions have recently deteriorated. ZTDG's volunteer work has included volunteering as a mentor in the Women's Empowerment Program at CC and volunteering as a cook at the Salvation Army.
ZTDG was reported to have undertaken "incomplete training in business and social work".[30] ZTDG is not currently working, nor engaging in any study.[31] Her goal is to become a certified trainer for assistance animals.[32]

In about 1 November 2023, ZTDG completed and submitted an NDIS Access Request Form seeking access as a participant in the NDIS under s 18 of the NDIS Act ('Access Request Form').

On 8 January 2024, a delegate of the CEO decided that ZTDG does not meet the access criteria under the NDIS Act ('Access Decision').[33]
ZTDG sought an internal review of this decision under s 100 of the NDIS Act.

On 8 March 2024, a different delegate of the CEO confirmed the Access Decision.[34] This is the Decision Under Review in this proceeding.

ZTDG sought review of the Decision Under Review by lodging an "Application for Review of Decision" form with the AAT.[35]

WHETHER ZTDG MEETS THE DISABILITY REQUIREMENTS UNDER S 24

The "disability requirements" under s 24 of the NDIS Act are made up of five mandatory criteria as follows:

(1) A person meets the disability requirements if:

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

(b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and

(c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities:

(d) the impairment or impairments affect the person's capacity for social or economic participation; and

(e) the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that vary in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime, despite the variation.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that are episodic or fluctuating may be taken to be permanent, and the person may be taken to be likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person's lifetime, despite the episodic or fluctuating nature of the impairments.

(4) Subsection (3) does not limit subsection (2).

The first criterion, under subsection 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act, requires a person seeking access to the NDIS to have a "disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable".
In National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis ('Davis'), Mortimer CJ of the Federal Court of Australia made the following judicial observation (emphasis added):[36]

What the legislative scheme focuses on is not the name of a person's disability, nor the diagnosis given to a person - but rather what are the impairments experienced by a person which may require supports so that the person can participate in all aspects of personal and community life. It is the impairment which the scheme contemplates may affect the "functional capacity" of a person.

The Access Guidelines provide the following guidance to decision-makers considering this criterion under subsection 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act (footnotes omitted):

When we consider your disability, we think about whether any reduction or loss in your ability to do things, across all life domains, is because of an impairment.

An impairment is a loss or significant change in at least one of:

To meet the disability requirements, we must have evidence your disability is caused by at least one of the impairments below

intellectual - such as how you speak and listen, read and write, solve problems, and process and remember information
cognitive - such as how you think, learn new things, use judgment to make decisions, and pay attention

• neurological - such as how your body functions

• physical - such as the ability to move parts of your body.

You may also be eligible for the NDIS if you have a psychosocial disability. This means you have reduced capacity to do daily life activities and tasks due to your mental health.

It doesn't matter what caused your impairment, for example if you've had it from birth, or acquired it from an injury, accident, or health condition.

It also doesn't matter if you have one impairment, or more than one impairment.

ZTDG gave evidence at the hearing about her various impairments and underlying medical conditions and lived experience and she also lodged an undated and unsigned SLE on 1 August 2024 which the Tribunal has taken into account.[37] At the hearing, ZTDG confirmed that she had prepared her SLE on 31 July 2024 and that she did so without assistance from any other person.

Evidence of Ms VL who is a close friend and informal support of ZTDG

ZTDG called her close friend and informal support to give evidence at the hearing, Ms VL. Prior to the hearing Ms VL had lodged a witness statement with the Tribunal.[38] At the hearing Ms VL said that her occupation as a "stay at home mum". She said that before that, she had worked for the council as a personal assistant. Ms VL said she had studied psychology for four years. Ms VL said she is unemployed. She said she sometimes works at an organisation as a parent advocate for children and parents.
Ms VL said she had known ZTDG since Boxing Day, 2015. They met in the park and struck up a friendship after realising they had both moved from New South Wales to South Australia and because they had children of the same age. Ms VL informed the Tribunal that ZTDG and herself are "more like sisters these days" because they have know each other "for so long". Ms VL said that currently, she will check in with ZTDG every second day by telephone to "see where she's at mentally and physically". Ms VL said that she will catch up with ZTDG about once a week in person when they will catch up for a coffee when their children are at school. Ms VL said that she lives about a 20-minute drive from ZTDG's house. Ms VL said the café where they have a coffee is half way between Ms VL's and ZTDG's home. She said that ZTDG will drive to the café.
Ms VL said she takes ZTDG to appointments and that ZTDG only trusts Ms VL with her child with everything her child has gone through and her neurodivergent disabilities. Ms VL said that she only drives C to school if required but that she does not have to do this often.
Ms VL said in her statement that ZTDG was healthy, fit and active, attending gym sessions, doing beachside runs and multiple activities with her child but that over the last ten years she had witnessed ZTDG's steady decline in her health, both physical and mentally. Ms VL described that ZTDG's ex-husband was arrested in 2016 and that ZTDG returned to New South Wales to get away from it all and then she returned to South Australia in 2017 at which time Ms VL said that ZTDG was still active, exercised regularly and attended many different activities with her daughter.
In 2018, Ms VL stated that everything was going well for ZTDG until November 20218 when she developed Bell's Palsy, causing the right side of her face to droop. Ms VL said this made it difficult for ZTDG to eat, drink and talk and that chronic nerve pain had accompanied this condition. Ms VL said that this resulted in the cessation of ZTDG engaging in physical activity and reduced for capacity "around the house".[39] Ms VL said that ZTDG had a friend staying with her who was able to assist with chores, home maintenance and every day functions. In 2019, Ms VL states that ZTDG started to experience "seizures" which "stabilised somewhat" during 2019 to 2021. Ms VL said that the seizures still affect ZTDG "today, with approximately one seizure every 6 months".
Ms VL stated that in 2020, ZTDG was required to make a witness statement in respect of the criminal proceedings concerning her ex-husband, and was assisted to do so by the Police over a period of three months involving twice-weekly meetings. Ms VL said that this had a major impact on ZTDG's mental health and that "heightened anxiety, major depression and PTSD followed". Ms VL said that ZTDG was later diagnosed with "Complex PTSD". The Tribunal notes that there is no medical evidence before this Tribunal of ZTDG having been diagnosed with "Complex PTSD".
Ms VL said that prior to this, ZTDG was studying community health, welfare and social work and that she had her own balloon sculpture business which kept her busy. Ms VL stated that ZTDG had to "give up everything due to her failing mental and physical state". Ms VL stated that ZTDG isolated herself, stopped socialising and no longer attended community activities. Ms VL said that ZTDG got an assistance dog that had become trained in detecting seizures before they happened. She said the dog as "really helped" ZTDG with everyday life and activities.
In 2021, Ms VL said that in 2021, ZTDG commenced consultation with the neurology department at Medical Centre F. Ms VL stated that ZTDG's seizures were occurring more frequently and were accompanied by migraines. Ms VL said there was a change in her medications and she was reviewed every three months by the neurologist for treatment. Ms VL said that ZTDG's drivers' licence was suspended for six months "due to the seizures". Ms VL said she drove ZTDG to her appointments and helped her with her child. Ms VL said that ZTDG experienced some falls during this time leading to a broken wrist and "extensive ankle ligament damage" on her ankle. Ms VL said that despite this, ZTDG continued to volunteer in the Salvation Army playgroup and canteen.[40]
In 2022, Ms VL stated that ZTDG's plain levels had increased during the year and "multiple calls" were made to the ambulance service. Ms VL said that she gave up volunteering and socialising activities due to the amount of pain she was in.[41]
Ms VL stated that ZTDG was hospitalised in early-2023 when she was unable to get out of bed or to walk due to her pain. Ms VL stated that an MRI, CT scans and X-rays were performed, which Ms VL said showed "mirror abnormalities but did not explain the cause". Ms VL stated that ZTDG's general practitioner had recommended that she use a walking stick or walking frame.
Ms VL stated that in 2024, ZTDG was hospitalised many times. She said that ZTDG's assistance dog had knocked her over accidently and that she had hit her head and was unconscious. Ms VL said that ZTDG was taken to hospital due to concussion and head trauma. Ms VL said that ZTDG's migraines had continued throughout 2024 and that in December 2024, she was admitted to hospital for three nights after a fall, which had led to her being "temporarily wheelchair bound". Ms VL stated that ZTDG "suffered soft tissue damage to her back, right hip, pelvis and leg".
Ms VL said that ZTDG was hospitalised in March 2025, for a racing heart rate of 180 and blood pressure of 189/128. Ms VL said this was "brought under control but sill remains a problem, leaving [ZTDG] lethargic, short of breath and unable to enjoy activities" with her child.
Ms VL stated that she supports ZTDG as much as she can including transporting her to and from hospital/appointments. Ms VL told the Tribunal at the hearing that ZTDG is unable to drive long distances and that she "gets quite anxious with public surroundings and settings". Ms VL said at the hearing that she will drive ZTDG to F Hospital once every three months (being a 50 to 60 minute drive) and if C needs to go horse riding at a location which is further away, then Ms VL will drive her. Ms VL provided the example of a horse riding camp which might take place on the school holidays. She said this a one-and-a-half hour drive. Ms VL said that ZTDG used to volunteer by leading the horses on the trail (which were undulating but not steep gravel pathways which she said could get quite slippery), but that ZTDG has told her that she has been unable to do so for about two years for safety reasons. Ms VL also said that once a fortnight C will attend sessions with Riding for the Disabled, in addition to the weekly horse riding classes and that ZTDG will take her there. Ms VL confirmed that those classes are about a 20-minute drive from their home. Ms VL said that when ZTDG had lead horses on the trail she did not use a walking aid, nor did she have an assistance dog at that time.
Ms VL said that ZTDG was meant to be using the walking stick for the last year, but that she was "quite stubborn" and "didn't want to give over that independence". Ms VL said whenever she has seen Ms VL in the past 12 months, she has been using her walking stick. Ms VL was asked whether ZTDG takes her dog for a walk. Ms VL answered, "No, only when he's working, what they go the shops or hospital appointments". Ms VL said she had never seen ZTDG take the dog for a walk. Ms VL added, "And I know she's just not able. She can't even walk around the supermarket without being out of breath".
When asked if ZTDG engaged in any exercise, Ms VL answered "No". Ms VL said she thinks that ZTDG would love to be able to exercise and referred back to how active she was when she first met ZTDG. Ms VL said that she rarely gets out with C, other than for essential things, apart from participating in the hydrotherapy sessions. Ms VL indicated she had been to two of those sessions. She described them as involving "just floating in the water" and that they do not do any sort of aerobic water activities. Ms VL said it was more to try and relieve her pain.
Ms VL also said that if they go to a "bigger shopping centre", that Ms VL and ZTDG will spend the day there, and then drive back. She gave an example of such a trip where the shopping centre is about 40 to 45 minutes' drive. Ms VL said they will take those shopping trips about once a month or every two months. Ms VL said they will have a meal, usually in the food court of the shopping centre. Ms VL indicated they will shop for clothes and other goods because there is not a lot of variety in their small town.
Ms VL said that they used to go to the beach near their town together but that they had not been since about 2017. Ms VL said that ZTDG found it hard to walk on uneven surfaces. Ms VL said that ZTDG likes to be at the beach but that she is "not a big swimmer". She said that ZTDG likes to swim in a swimming pool, such as an hydrotherapy pool. Ms VL said that ZTDG use to go every Saturday with her daughter but that she had not mentioned going there "for quite a while" (that is, about three or four months ago).
At the hearing, Ms VL said that she will go to ZTDG's home to help her to "organise things" and that Ms VL will take a cooked meal to her when she can. Ms VL said that "the main thing" she does for ZTDG, is to help her with her daughter.
When Ms VL was asked at the hearing to state any programs or treatment which ZTDG was engaging with at the moment, Ms VL said that ZTDG is treated at a hospital for migraines once every three months and that this had been ongoing for about two years. Ms VL confirmed that Ms VL receives injections for her migraines. Ms VL said that the injections will reduce ZTDG's nerve pain based on what she had told Ms VL and her observations. Ms VL said that when she had just had an injection, that ZTDG will not have any migraines or feel as bad. Ms VL said that it will slowly "wear off" and towards the end of the three-month period, her Bell's Palsy becomes worse. She said that ZTDG will slur her speech and will dribble her food.
Apart from the injections, Ms VL said that as far as she knew, there had not been any other treatments. Ms VL said that ZTDG had participated in community groups and had volunteered for the Salvation Army playgroup but that she had to stop that a few months ago. Later on, Ms VL said she had forgotten to mention that ZTDG was also attending fortnightly "psychology sessions" for her mental health by Ms PS.
At the hearing, when asked if ZTDG had any other friends or was able to socialise in the community, Ms VL answered that she does not. Ms VL said that ZTDG used to be outgoing but that "now really the only time she gets out is to take her daughter to a riding lesson". Ms VL said that apart from that, she believes that all of ZTDG's "other, sort of, socialisation" is "online" and that Ms VL is the only one that ZTDG will talk to and to tell her how she is feeling.
When asked at the hearing, Ms VL said that ZTDG was able to look after her finances. She said that ZTDG could go shopping but that she found it very difficult to walk with her walking frame. She later corrected this statement and said that ZTDG walked with a walking stick. Ms VL said that ZTDG has an assistance dog so with only having two hands, she will rely upon her daughter to push the trolley and "getting all the supplies". Ms VL said that she does not help ZTDG with her shopping but will make and take meals to her about once or twice a month.
Ms VL was asked whether ZTDG is able to care for herself, personally, such as help herself in the shower and look after her clothes. Ms VL said that ZTDG "really struggles" and that her house and her clothes are "not the cleanest". Ms VL suggested that ZTDG was "really struggling to keep up with housework and general hygiene".
Ms VL mentioned at the hearing the ZTDG caught up with gaming friends online. She added that ZTDG will talk with and game with and against her online friends. Ms VL said that ZTDG has been gaming for "probably eight years". Ms VL said she did not think ZTDG spent more time gaming than she should and that she mainly played at night. Ms VL said she may see the online gamers in real life and that they are from New South Wales and "possibly some from Adelaide". She thinks they were ZTDG's friends before she had started to engage in online gaming with them.
Ms VL said that ZTDG had made some "acquaintances" though the Salvation Army and the CC. She used this term but she said she had not heard that ZTDG had caught up with, nor had she mentioned them for quite some time. Ms VL gave evidence that ZTDG had been volunteering at CC until a few months ago. Ms VL was asked if ZTDG caught up with any of the people at the CC and she answered that she had done so by catching up for coffee or at the CC itself. Ms VL said she did not think that they had met up for dinner and that she was not sure how close ZTDG was to them, which is why she had called them acquaintances. When asked whether she remembered if ZTDG has experience any conflict or interpersonal difficulties with those persons, Ms VL answered that ZTDG got along with them very well. Ms VL said she stopped attending the catch ups because she was "more unwell" and could not get to them, or "just wasn't able to attend them".
Ms VL said she has not experienced any conflict with ZTDG and they that they were "very close". Ms VL said she was aware that ZTDG spoke to her mother and her sister and that she has a Facebook account but it is only for close family members and friends. Ms VL said as far as she knows, she is unaware of ZTDG have any conflict with her family members. Ms VL said she had met ZTDG's mother and stepfather when they travelled to their town about two or three years ago and they stayed for about a week. Ms VL said that ZTDG had not had any family visit her since then, but that there was a friend from New South Wales who came to assist her, when she needed it. Ms VL said she is still in contact with her friend by Facebook but they were not close.
Ms VL said that the last time ZTDG went to visit her parents and sister in New South Wales was last Christmas. C took this trip with ZTDG. Ms VL said that they hired an Uber to get to the airport. She said that ZTDG and C were able to board the plane first due to her special needs. Ms VL said that they went for about three weeks. She said they caught Covid and did not end up doing much at all. She said when they were better, they went to the local supermarket or the shopping centre but otherwise, "pretty much stayed around the house".
Ms VL was asked whether ZTDG has spoken to her about wanting to reduce the amount of Panadeine Forte or Ibuprofen she was taking. Ms VL said that she believes that ZTDG would like to reduce all of the medications she is on because "she's on so many". Ms VL said they have obviously been prescribed for a reason and if they help her get through the day and night, so she thinks this is okay.
Ms VL said that she had witnessed ZTDG rushing to go to the toilet, which she found difficult because of her mobility issues. Ms VL said this had led to "accidents". Ms VL was asked whether ZTDG wore any incontinence protection to which Ms VL answered, "Not that I know of, not at this stage". When asked whether Ms VL knew why ZTDG did not wear continence products if she was having continence issues, Ms VL said that ZTDG would be embarrassed to use those products, reflecting that ZTDG was embarrassed to use a walking stick. Ms VL said she was unaware of ZTDG having any treatment for her incontinence issues and that she started having those issues about six months ago.

Impairments as listed by ZTDG and Dr NL in ZTDG's Access Request Form

On the Access Request Form, ZTDG listed her "main disability" as "Complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)" and her "other disabilities" substantially affecting her everyday life, include "Major Clinical Depression", "Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures. (PNES).", "permanent Bell's Palsy" and "Neuropathic pain".
Section 2 of the Access Request Form was completed by Dr NL on 1 November 2023.[42] The conditions referred to in the above paragraph, are identical to the conditions inserted by Dr NL into Section 2 of this form when describing ZTDG's main disability and her other disabilities. When prompted to indicate ZTDG's "duration/frequency of current treatments", Dr NL stated that ZTDG was receiving "psychiatry monthly" and "psychology monthly". Dr NL indicated on the form that the "expected results of current treatments" was the "maintenance & improvement of mental health & well-being".[43]
On the Access Request Form, in Section 2, Dr NL also stated that:

(a) ZTDG has previously received psychology fortnightly to monthly to help her deal with symptoms of PTSD;[44] and > > (b) when prompted to indicate if there are early intervention supports likely to reduce ZTDG's future support needs, Dr NL answered "No".

On 6 November 2023, Dr NL completed a further and separate "NDIS Evidence of psychosocial disability form" ('Second NDIS Form').[45] Dr NL confirmed that ZTDG had a mental health condition and that she had been diagnosed with "Complex PTSD" in 2016, and "Major Clinical Depression". Dr NL stated that ZTDG has never been hospitalised for those conditions. Dr NL described ZTDG's "main disability" being the one with the most impact on ZTDG's daily life, as being her Complex PTSD, and stated that ZTDG's functional capacity had been affected by this disability for a period of 16 years. Dr NL stated that he had started treating ZTDG in 2018.[46] Dr NL stated that ZTDG has "ongoing" psychology, psychiatric input and a support dog. Dr NL rated each of those treatments or interventions as being "partially effective".[47]
On the NDIS Second Form, Dr NL indicated that:

(a) ZTDG's impairment was not time limited and/or degenerative in nature;[48] > > (b) her impairment was currently being treated and the treatments included "psychiatry support", "psychology" and "Carers SA". Dr NL was mistaken about this as it was established during the hearing that Ms PS is a counsellor, rather than a registered psychologist, and that ZTDG was not, in fact, receiving any psychology or psychiatric support at this time;[49] > > (c) there were no "known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments likely to remedy" ZTDG's impairment, explaining that ZTDG was "already on most recommended treatments including pharmacotherapy, psychology & regular psychiatry input";[50] and > > (d) that ZTDG's impairment/s caused by her mental health condition/s are likely to be "permanent".[51]

On the Second NDIS Form, Dr NL described that ZTDG's impairments affected the following domains:[52]

(a) "mobility" because ZTDG's "severe agoraphobia would limit her ability to move outside the safety of her home"; > > (b) "communication" because ZTDG's "PTSD attacks would make her unable to express her needs"; > > (c) "social interaction" because ZTDG has "difficulty managing feels & emotions. Finds it difficult to make friends due to PTSD. Has agoraphobia which makes her socially isolated"; > > (d) "learning" because "due to impaired cognitive capacity, she is unlikely to be able to study or learn new skills effectively"; > > (e) "self-care" because ZTDG's "depression would inhibit her from being able to have adequate self-care. Her own health would be neglected as a result"; and > > (f) "self-management" because ZTDG's "bouts of depression &/or PTSD attacks would make her incapable to organise life. It would directly impact on her ability to complete her usual daily tasks" and that "she has impaired cognitive ability as a result of her mental health condition".

In ZTDG's SFIC, she stated that the list of impairments which she had relayed to the NDIA, and which "had been agreed upon by the NDIA", comprised the following:

(a) "complex post-traumatic stress disorder" ('Complex PTSD') (which "includes Anxiety, Major Depression and Depressive Mood Disorder/Episodes");[53] > > (b) "Major Clinical Depression"[54] ('MDD'); > > (c) "Psychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures"; > > (d) "Persistent Bell's Palsy"; > > (e) "Neuropathic Nerve Pain"; and > > (f) "Functional Neurological Disorder".

In ZTDG's SFIC, she stated that this is not a "comprehensive or complete list of all impairments which are impacting on daily living" and that with some of these "impairments" that "co-morbidity of additional multi-facetted conditions and symptoms can and do frequently occur".[55] ZTDG claims that the above conditions have affected her both physically and mentally.

When ZTDG was called to give evidence at the hearing, she was taken to the list of impairments as set out in the above paragraph and asked by her disability advocate, whether this list was complete at the time of lodgement. ZTDG answered in the affirmative and added that some of the conditions, at a later stage, had "rolled into" a condition known as "functional neurological disorder". ZTDG elaborated that the "psychogenic non epileptic seizures, the neuropathic nerve pain, even the clinical major depression are all triggered into a disorder called functional neurological disorder, which all can come or stem from complex post-traumatic stress disorder which is considered a neurological disorder itself, usually due to repeated and long term exposure to long term stresses which then cause in your neurological deformity and condition to the brain".
ZTDG told the Tribunal that her neurologists from the Botox Clinic or the rotating neurology clinic, had told her that it was considered "more of a software design development or deformity or flaw" within the brain, as opposed to "a hardware deformity". She suggested that her brain was having issues communicating to her central nervous system due to "long term exposures to stresses". ZTDG said that Complex PTSD will create "misfires and this misconnection between the brain itself and the central nervous system which then replicates these conditions such as the psychogenic non epileptic seizures and the neuropathic nerve pain". ZTDG said that treatment resistant major clinical depression played a part in this too.
ZTDG said she sees a neurologist from the Botox Clinic, Dr Z, for her three-monthly Botox injections at Medical Centre F. ZTDG said Dr Z is treating her migraines and her "nerve pain in her face". ZTDG confirmed that the Botox Clinic has also carried out nerve conduction studies ('NCS') on ZTDG and that the results of NCS were "normal". ZTDG said that she had wanted to rule out carpel tunnel syndrome because she was having nerve pain down her arm. ZTDG said this test was carried out about 18 to 24 months and the result was also "normal".
Further, ZTDG said that she sees a rotating neurology clinic once every six to 12 months where she said she does not know which neurologist she will see on each visit. ZTDG said the neurologists access the same set of clinical notes. She said they will focus on whether there has been a change of symptoms and what they can do to improve ZTDG's quality of life. At the hearing, ZTDG gave evidence that she will also see Dr NL, her treating general practitioner.
ZTDG confirmed that she is not being treated by a psychiatrist. She also said that she has not ever attended a pain management clinic to participate in a pain management program. ZTDG gave evidence that she was under the belief that Ms PS was a psychologist. ZTDG was surprised to find out at the hearing that Ms PS was not a registered psychologist but is qualified as a counsellor only.

Whether ZTDG has any impairment/s arising from the condition of PTSD or Complex PTSD or PTSD-type symptomatology

In ZTDG's SLE, she stated that she has had a long battle with PTSD. She referred to not being able to bake with C due to triggers and flashbacks arsing from her ex-husband's past judgments about her ability to bake. ZTDG also indicated she is unable to sleep for longer than 2.5 to 3 hours per night, without been woken through horrific dreams and memories of her experiences. This was inconsistent with an indication given by ZTDG (and endorsed by Dr NL on 23 January 2024 on the Department of Infrastructure and Transport "Certificate of Fitness Light Vehicle (Private) Drivers Licence" form that ZTDG does not have "sleep disorder". ZTDG's alleged difficulty with sleeping was not specified on this Form when applying to have her drivers' licence reinstated. There was no evidence before the Tribunal of ZTDG every having undergone a sleep study.
ZTDG implied that she is hypervigilant and anxious when going to a café, walking in a public place with a crowd or when going shopping.[56] Despite her reported symptoms, ZTDG gave evidence at the hearing that she will make a day trip to a larger shopping centre with Ms VL about once a month to buy clothing and other items, and to have a meal in the food court. This is inconsistent with ZTDG's statements in her SLE.
In ZTDG's SLE, she describes the impact of her claimed conditions on Complex PTSD, "depression and anxiety" upon her as follows:[57]

The daily life of living with CPTSD depression and anxiety can be anything from the inability to get out of bed and function, including the simple task of being able to take medications, personal hygiene tasks such as a shower to wash my hair, or even household tasks such as laundry cooking and cleaning, however on the other side of this there are days where it is quite the opposite and not only do you achieve these tasks but more due to using it as a coping mechanism to quieten the thoughts of sadness, guilt, anger and repressed emotions and memories within your mind. Your mind literally becomes your master and dictates what you are and are not able to do on a daily basis. > > The problem with this is having a mind that dictates these things after a period of time starts to dictate what the body can do as well. Not only being a prisoner to your own mind but also to your body is something I would never wish upon anybody else. CPTSD, depression and anxiety are not just down days or feeling blue, it can consume me and this can manifest physically as well.

At the hearing ZTDG said she had been diagnosed with the condition of PTSD since approximately 2020, and that this diagnosis was "upgraded" to Complex PTSD after 2022. ZTDG referred to the criminal court proceeding in May 2022 involving her ex-husband. ZTDG said the stress of the questioning had played a major part in the deterioration of her mental health at that time. ZTDG said she has struggled to recover from this, even with therapy and the help of medication. ZTDG said it had been difficult for her to overcome, even with the help of her assistance dog who is trained in "psychotherapy therapies and interruption behaviours". ZTDG referred to what had happened with her child and said that on a constant daily basis, she felt like she had failed her child.
When asked who had diagnosed her with PTSD, ZTDG said it was Ms PS (who she described as being her "therapist"), and Dr NL. She said that "between the two of them, they both came to a general consensus". It was brought to ZTDG's attention that Ms PS was not a psychologist but rather, a counsellor.
When asked whether the condition of PTSD had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist, ZTDG said she had seen a psychiatrist "as per a request through victims of crime", namely, Dr B. ZTDG added "And he agreed that there was complex PTSD involved in his ruling, I believe, as well". ZTDG was referring to a medico-legal report authored by Dr B dated 23 July 2023 ('Dr B's Report'). Dr B examined ZTDG for the purpose of ZTDG's claim for compensation as a victim of the crime perpetrated by her ex-husband.
Dr B is not ZTDG's treating psychiatrist. However, Dr B's Report contained the opinions of a qualified psychiatrist relating to ZTDG's mental health conditions and so the Tribunal places significant weight on those opinions. Apart from Dr B's Report, ZTDG did not adduce any evidence by a psychiatrist or psychologist because ZTDG is not being treated by any such health practitioners at the present time.
In Dr B's Report,[58] he stated that in 2020, further allegations were made against ZTDG's ex-husband's behaviour and that ZTDG had found out about his offending towards her child from when she was two weeks of age, until the age of three. Dr B stated that ZTDG was "very, very distressed" and developed Bell's Palsy in 2020. Dr B stated that ZTDG had told Dr B that she became, permanently, in "flight or fight mode" and that she had been diagnosed with PTSD and "major depression". Dr B stated the ZTDG had told him that sounds, smells and songs, that reminded her of her ex-husband, would bring on panic attacks anywhere, at home or in shopping centres.
Dr B stated that ZTDG had told him that her ex-husband was a "very, very controlling partner" and he had "stripped her of her personality", had taken away her self-belief, that he did not allow ZTDG to work or to own a car, and that their house was never clean enough for him. Dr B told ZTDG that after her ex-husband's departure, she remained in this "affected emotional state" for a couple of years and was frightened that he would take C, or that she would lose C.
Dr B stated that after the first lot of revelations about her ex-husband, ZTDG was having panic attacks. However, despite this, ZTDG had commenced a university course in business. Dr B stated that he had changed her studies to social work and community health, "thinking that she wanted to help people".
ZTDG told Dr B that after the second lot of revelations about her ex-husband, that she was "too ill", had to withdraw from her studies and took the last two-and-a-half years off.[59]
When Dr B was asked to state the nature and extent of the injuries arising from the "subject offence" (being the sexual offending by her ex-husband towards C), he stated that ZTDG is suffering what can best be inadequately be categorised as:

major depressive disorder with anxious distress, with marked post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology, with, I understand, psychogenic, that is, emotionally derived, epileptic seizure, and a hemiparesis very likely of psychogenic origin, that is symptomatic of her emotional illness, and there are panic disorder symptoms in addition.

In the NDIA's SFIC, it accepts that ZTDG has impairments to which a psychosocial disability, namely PTSD, is attributable.[60]
At the hearing, Dr NL confirmed that he is the current treating practitioner of ZTDG. Dr NL gave evidence that he works full-time at the medical clinic and that he has about 2,500 other patients. Dr NL said he had been seeing ZTDG since at least 2018. Dr NL said that initially he was seeing ZTDG once every couple of weeks, to once a month, depending on what the issues were, and that more recently, he had been seeing her once a fortnight, "to support her through her mental health situation". Dr NL said he had had 21 consultations with ZTDG in the 2025 year to date with the last one being on 5 August 2025. Dr NL said that ZTDG's situation is complex, with her mental health issues, FND and associated neurological issues. Dr NL gave evidence that he "bulk bills" ZTDG and that she does not pay to see him.
Dr NL said he was "aware of" psychosocial diagnoses for ZTDG and that she had had a "history of depression and anxiety", as well as "PTSD" from her previous trauma and that she experienced flashbacks. Dr NL said that ZTDG had had the conditions of depression and PTSD, before she became a patient of his clinic.
Dr NL was asked whether he had diagnosed ZTDG, using the criteria set out in the "DSM V" Manual.[61] Dr NL answered in the affirmative in relation to major clinical depression. Dr NL clarified that he was meaning to refer to the condition of "Major Depressive Disorder" being the term used for this condition under the DSM V. Dr NL added that he thought that ZTDG suffered from "symptoms of anxiety" but that her symptoms did "not quite fit" with the criteria for the condition of "Generalised Anxiety Disorder".
When Dr NL was asked if he had worked through the DSM V criteria with ZTDG, he answered "not in recent times". The Tribunal asked Dr NL whether there was any reason why he had not formally diagnosed ZTDG or referred her to a specialist to be diagnosed, in light of ZTDG's claim that she had PTSD and the reported severity of her symptoms. Dr NL said he had assumed that she has this condition because when she was "transferred over", he said she had the condition of PTSD. Dr NL said that ZTDG had signs and symptoms which are consistent with the condition of PTSD.
The Tribunal asked Dr NL if he had ever received a letter (from another doctor) setting out diagnosis of PTSD for ZTDG. Dr NL replied, "Not that I can find". He said, "I imagine from the doctor from the [name omitted] surgery". No such letter was specifically identified by Dr NL in his clinical notes which he had with him at the hearing. Dr B referred to the supporting letter by Dr B (that is, Dr B's Report). The Tribunal asked Dr NL to comment about Dr B's opinion that ZTDG has symptoms of PTSD but he had stopped short of making a diagnosis of PTSD. Dr NL did not seem to accept this distinction and said that the Tribunal cannot be sure that what Dr B states in his letter is, "not a diagnosis". Despite Dr NL's reflection, there is no clear documentary medical evidence before the Tribunal diagnosing ZTDG with the condition of PTSD or Complex PTSD. Dr NL did not state categorically that ZTDG had this condition but rather, like Dr B, referred to her having marked PTSD symptomatology.
The Tribunal finds that:

(a) ZTDG has not been formally diagnosed with, and does not have, the condition of PTSD (or Complex PTSD); > > (b) ZTDG experiences PTSD-type symptoms which have resulted in an impairment.

The Tribunal concludes that ZTDG has an impairment which is attributable to a psychosocial disability, arising from her experience of ongoing marked PTSD-type symptomatology ('Impairment 1').

Whether ZTDG has any impairment/s arising from the condition of MDD, generalised anxiety disorder or anxiety-type symptoms

In Dr B's Report, he clearly diagnoses ZTDG with the conditions of "major depressive disorder with anxious distress". Dr NL also opined that ZTDG has the condition of MDD and that she has anxiety-type symptoms. Dr NL opined that ZTDG does not have the condition of "generalised anxiety disorder".
ZTDG's evidence is that she experiences anxiety-related symptoms from time to time including dissociation seizures on occasion, reported panic attacks, and she can suffer anxiety when out in public places or entrusting C into the care of others.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr B and Dr NL and based on that evidence, finds that:

(a) ZTDG has been diagnosed with and has the condition of MDD; > > (b) ZTDG has not been formally diagnosed with, and does not have any anxiety-related conditions, such as "generalised anxiety disorder"; and > > (c) ZTDG has experienced and continues to experience anxiety-type symptoms which have resulted in an impairment.

The Tribunal concludes that ZTDG has an impairment which is attributable to a psychosocial disability, arising from her condition of MDD and her ongoing experience of anxiety-type symptoms ('Impairment 2').

Whether ZTDG has any impairment/s arising from the condition of Bell's Palsy

At the hearing, Dr NL confirmed that ZTDG has Bell's Palsy and that "she is getting pain with that". It was not in contention in this hearing that ZTDG has developed the condition of Bell's Palsy in 2020. Dr NL gave evidence at the hearing that Bell's Palsy is separate from the condition of FND. ZTDG has regularly undergoes significant treatment in the form of three-monthly Botox injection administered by neurologists in a neurology clinic, in order to manage HFS and pain arising from this condition.
The NDIA contends that it is not evident that ZTDG continues to have any impairment relating specifically, to her Bell's Palsy, "save potentially for some facial drooping".[62]
ZTDG gave evidence that towards the end of the three-month period following a Botox injection, her symptoms will worsen and she may have some difficulty eating food. Ms VL corroborated this evidence indicating that towards the end of the period, she might dribble her food.
Overall, the Tribunal considers that ZTDG has a physical impairment on occasion arising from her condition of Bell's Palsy (and resulting HFS) ('Impairment 3') being that her capacity to feed herself food in impaired at certain limited times.

Whether ZTDG has any impairment/s arising from the condition of FND or unexplained neuropathic pain

ZTDG has reported that she has FND and experiences neuropathic pain in her lower limbs, hips and shoulders.
At the hearing, ZTDG gave evidence that her neurological conditions, forming part of the FND, could be attributed to the stress on her body. ZTDG informed the Tribunal that after many years of "being programmed and conditioned" by a "master manipulator and narcissist of a partner" that "it would have only been a matter of time" before it showed in her body. ZTDG said that "Stress over a very, a very long period of time does manifest in many ways". She said that her stress had "manifested through [her] health" because she would hold onto it and it would bottle up which resulted in her either becoming "obsessive compulsive with different things", or she "would show it in other unhealthy ways". ZTDG said that seven or eight years ago she would become compulsive with her health and would run five kilometres a day or work out at the gym for three hours. ZTDG said she had felt her house was never clean enough and she would be up at 3am, scrubbing her bathroom with a toothbrush.[63] ZTDG said that at the moment her stress has "manifested completely in her health" and she would love to have a mind and body of capable 40 year old, but she felt like she was trapped in the body of a 65-year-old.
When Dr NL asked by ZTDG's disability advocate to state the diagnoses of ZTDG, Dr NL said there were "a fair few he was aware of", for instance, FND. When asked whether Dr NL had diagnosed ZTDG with FND, Dr NL said that this condition was diagnosed through the neurologist at Medical Centre F. Dr NL was unable to identify which neurologist had diagnosed ZTDG with FND, explaining that the reason for this was that ZTDG had been seen by a few neurologists at Medical Centre F. Dr NL confirmed that Dr Lu had made a diagnosis of FND on 21 November 2023 ('Dr Lu's Report') (being the latest letter Dr NL could see) and he referred also to Dr Cooper having done so (but he did not provide a reference to Dr Cooper's letter or report). Dr NL said he believed there was a diagnosis of FND prior to this time but could not see it in his notes.
The Tribunal located a full copy of Dr Lu's Report in the medical records produced by Dr NL before he gave evidence at the hearing. In Dr Lu's Report, he stated that he had spent considerable time with ZTDG discussing the concept of FND, relating to the examination findings and specifically, the brief or transient ability to perform movements/power which indicates the right leg and side are able to function in between bursts of dysfunction. Dr Lu stated that he had discussed ZTDG "the hardware vs software conceptualisation and offer some normalisation of functional symptoms which can occur mildly in many people and are overall benign. Generally, treatment is based on a medically restrained rehabilitation model and as such I have offered a referral to our day rehabilitation service". He said ZTDG was agreeable to this. Dr Lu stated that ZTDG was already seeing a psychologist (this being factually incorrect) and that he had suggested ZTDG browse available fact sheets from "neurosymptoms.org" to understand her symptomatology and the underlying aetiology for this. He said that symptoms within the realm of their experience should not be alarming, however, new symptoms or other changes may require re-assessment. He explained that a diagnosis of FND is "fluid and can change", and that new symptoms are not inconsistent with this.
Dr NL gave evidence that initially there were concerns "for epilepsy and seizures", however, the results of EEGs undertaken of ZTDG were "normal". Dr NL said that the reason the diagnosis for ZTDG of FND is that she does not fit the specific criteria of other conditions, at this point in time. Dr NL explained that there were no findings of underlying structural issues and the MRIs and EEGs taken of ZTDG were all "normal". Dr NL confirmed that FND is a "diagnosis of exclusion" and comprises a "collection of different symptoms".
The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZTDG has:

(a) a physical impairment arising from her condition of FND and her experience of unexplained neuropathic pain affecting her lower limbs, hips and shoulders ('Impairment 4'); and > > (b) a neurological impairment arising from her condition of FND and her experience of unexplained neuropathic pain affecting her lower limbs, hips and shoulders ('Impairment 5').

Whether ZTDG has any impairment/s arising from the condition of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures

The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the occurrence of the report psychogenic non-epileptic seizures or dissociation episodes is infrequent and happen momentarily. ZTDG is able to drive a car, has a current licence to drive and does drive her car. This would appear to indicate that the potential severity of such seizures or episodes in not at a sufficient level that impairs her ability to drive a car and would disqualify her from driving her car. Dr NL stated on a Certificate of Fitness Light Vehicle (Private) Drivers Licence form completed in January 2024, that ZTDG's FND does not affect her driving.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that ZTDG has an impairment arising from those seizures/episodes due to the infrequency by which they occur. Dr NL described them as "vague-ing out" episodes rather than "seizures".

Conclusion in relation to whether s 24(1)(a) is met

The Tribunal concludes that ZTDG has the five impairments referred to above and for this reason, the Tribunal concludes that ZTDG meets the first mandatory criterion under subsection 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act.
Based on ZTDG's own evidence, the Tribunal considers that her overall level of functional impairment in respect of undertaking the six prescribed activities, is not what the Tribunal considers to be substantial. While the Tribunal acknowledges that ZTDG experiences some challenges with ADLs, she owns and drives her own car, can walk around and undertake transfers, look after C and their pets, run her household independently with some peripheral assistance from a cleaner and by Ms VL brining her an occasional meal, and ZTDG independently attends to most activities of self-care. ZTDG has friends and community acquaintances and goes on regular shopping trips or meets them at cafes. She travels interstate to visit family annually.

The second mandatory criterion under subsection 24(1)(b) of the NDIS Act, requires a person seeking access to the NDIS to have one or more impairments that "are, or are likely to be, permanent". The word "permanent" is not defined in the NDIS Act or in the Access Rules. The meaning of this term was considered in Davis. At [87], Mortimer CJ of the Federal Court of Australia, held as follows (emphasis added):

The usual approach to construction, in the absence of a contrary intention, means the Court should construe a term consistently throughout a single legislative scheme, assuming Parliament intended it to have the same meaning wherever it was used. The term "permanent" is also used in s 25, dealing with threshold criteria for early intervention supports. I agree with the respondent's submissions that ascribing the term the meaning of "irreversible" does not sit easily with the context and purpose of the early intervention threshold requirements. The reference to "permanent basis" in s 29(b) is another example where ascribing the meaning of "irreversible" would not fit easily with the context and purpose of the provision. Section 29 relates to a person ceasing to be a participant as a result of entering a residential care service, or being provided with home care, "on a permanent basis". A meaning commensurate with "enduring" is more compatible.

Accordingly, the Tribunal will consider next whether each of ZTDG's impairments is, or is likely to be, permanent, in that it is "enduring", rather than focussing on whether it is "irreversible".
Rule 5.4 of the Access Rules provides that an impairment is considered permanent, or likely to be permanent, "only if there are no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical, or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the impairment".
Rule 5.5 of the Access Rules provides that:

An impairment may be permanent notwithstanding that the severity of its impact on the functional capacity of the person may fluctuate or there are prospects that the severity of the impact of the impairment on the person's functional capacity, including their psychosocial functioning, may improve.

Rule 5.6 of the Access Rules provides that an impairment "may require medical treatment and review before a determination can be made about whether the impairment is permanent or likely to be permanent". This rule also provides that:[64]

The impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent only if the impairment does not require further medical treatment or review in order for its permanency (or likely permanency) to be demonstrated (even though the impairment may continue to be treated and reviewed after this has been demonstrated).

Rule 5.7 of the Access Rules provides that if an impairment is of a degenerative nature, "the impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent if medical or other treatment would not, or would be unlikely to, improve the condition".
In Dr B's Report, he stated that he had been told that ZTDG had been "disassociating", was having panic attacks and began to have seizures at the end of 2019, for which no organic cause was found (that is, psychogenic). Dr B stated that ZTDG had not had a seizure for the previous six months and had been taking an anti-convulsant drug, Topiramate 75mg twice daily, and had been seeing a psychologist since mid-2020 on a fortnightly basis. Dr B stated that ZTDG was taking Duloxetine, 60mg daily.
In Dr B's Report, he states that ZTDG had been treated with psychological counselling. This is incorrect. At that time, the counselling received by ZTDG had been delivered by Ms PS who is a counsellor but is neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. Dr B refers to the treatment of ZTDG with antidepressant and anticonvulsant medication and the Botox injections for her right-sided Bell's Palsy. Dr B states that ZTDG "needs to continue with her present treatment regime".
When Dr B was asked to state the prognosis for ZTDG's medical conditions, he said that her prognosis is "uncertain, although the likelihood is that she will gradually improve with time now that all the legal matters, which act as such a reminder of the abuse, have been finalised". Dr B added as follows:

Of concern is [ZTDG]'s daughter's emotional illness, a consequence of the abuse, and its propensity to lead to [ZTDG]'s psychiatric illness being perpetrated, or at least making it harder for her to recover from it, with the guilt she feels that the abuse happened while [C] was in her care.

Whether Impairment 1 is, or is likely to be, permanent?

The evidence is unclear in respect of how long ZTDG has been experiencing PTSD-related symptoms. In the supporting evidence to ZTDG's request for access to the NDIS,[65] Dr NL indicates that ZTDG's functional capacity has been affected by her disability (which according to Dr NL, comprises Complex PTSD as the "main disability"), for a period of 16 years. The Tribunal notes that Dr NL had only been treating ZTDG for a period of five years as of the time of making this assertion. The assertion is not based on direct observations Dr NL has made of ZTDG, except for those made over the previous five years while he has been treating her. The basis for Dr NL's assertion is the reported information that he said he had received from ZTDG or her former treating doctors.
As mentioned above, ZTDG gave evidence that she has been diagnosed with the condition of PTSD since approximately 2020, and that this diagnosis was "upgraded" to Complex PTSD after 2022. ZTDG claims that it arose from her reported abusive relationship with her ex-husband and from the subsequent revelations about the severity of his sexual offending towards C when she was an infant.
At the hearing, Dr NL was asked to outline the treatment that ZTDG was undertaking for PTSD. Dr NL said that ZTDG was having "psychology support up until recently" and "psychology through victims of crime". Dr NL said that she had access to a psychiatrist at that point but that he thought this was "finished now". Dr NL stated that ZTDG was on medications "to help with the depression side of things".
Dr NL considers that ZTDG has a permanent impairment arising from PTSD. However, it is apparent to the Tribunal that Dr NL has had an erroneous understanding about the treatments that ZTDG had received for this condition. ZTDG has not been treated by a psychiatrist. Rather, she has had a single consultation with a psychiatrist, Dr B, in 2023 for medico-legal purposes and has not seen him or any other psychiatrist since.
Dr NL told the Tribunal at the hearing that he had not referred ZTDG to a psychiatrist, stating that he and ZTDG were focussing on other priorities in relation to her health and the neurological symptoms which he said were more pressing. When asked why he had not arranged to place ZTDG on a wait list to see a psychiatrist, Dr NL's response was it not easy to arrange to see a psychiatrist where they were living. When asked about consultations by telehealth, Dr NL was not supportive about telehealth not being an appropriate mode of conducting such consultations. The Tribunal does not accept Dr NL's concerns about this and considers that those referrals should have been pursued by Dr NL, to ensure that ZTDG was reviewed by a psychiatrist so that they could undertake a medical review of her psychotropic mediation regime.
As mentioned above, Dr NL also mistakenly believed that ZTDG has been receiving therapeutic intervention by a psychologist when this is not the case.
At the hearing, Dr NL was asked to state which treatments were recommended for a person with the condition of PTSD. Dr NL said that a person with PTSD would usually go through treatment by a psychologist and a potentially, also a psychiatrist if there were medication changes. When asked what form the psychology might comprise, Dr NL said that it could include cognitive behaviour therapy ('CBT') and eye-movement desensitisation and reprocessing ('EDMR'). When asked, Dr NL was unable to tell the Tribunal whether ZTDG had received those treatments. Dr NL gave evidence that ZTDG would benefit from that sort of treatment and potentially, that it could improve her symptoms. Dr NL agreed that further investigation or referral was warranted and that he had assumed that ZTDG was seeing a psychologist. Dr NL said he would be looking into this.
While the Tribunal notes that it would seem that ZTDG has experienced significant PTSD-type symptoms for several years, that unfortunately, under the medical supervision of Dr NL, she has not yet received all known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical and medical treatments that would be likely to remedy Impairment 1. Those treatments comprise:

(a) treatment from a psychiatrist who can undertake a review of her current psychotropic medical regime; and > > (b) treatment from a psychologist who can provide ZTDG with psychotherapy including CBT and who may also administer EDMR on her.

The Tribunal finds that those clinical and medical treatments are likely to remedy Impairment 1.
The Tribunal finds that the pre-condition set out in Rule 5.4 of the Access Rules is not met because the above two treatments are known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical, or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the Impairment 1, and ZTDG has not yet received those treatments. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Impairment 1 is enduring.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that Impairment 1 is not, or is not likely to be, permanent.

Whether Impairment 2 is, or is likely to be, permanent

The evidence revealed that ZTDG had an episode of depression when she was a young adult. She took anti-depressant medication for a period of time and reportedly recovered from that earlier episode of depression.
In Dr B's Report (dated 23 July 2023), he provided a diagnosis at the time he assessed her, of ZTDG having MDD and he also confirmed ZTDG's experience of anxiety-type symptoms. Dr B stated that ZTDG started taking antidepressant medication in 2019 and that she had recently found a "new psychologist". This treatment was reported to be "helpful". As explained above, ZTDG was under a mistaken belief that her counsellor was a psychologist when this is not the case.
The Tribunal acknowledges that ZTDG's MDD and her anxiety-type symptoms have been longstanding. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that ZTDG had availed herself of all known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical, or other treatments that would be likely to remedy Impairment 2.
Based on the evidence referred to above when considering whether Impairment 1 is, or is likely to be, permanent, the Tribunal is also satisfied in respect of Impairment 2, that:

(a) treatment from a psychiatrist who can undertake a review or her current psychotropic medical regime; > > (b) treatment from a psychologist who can provide ZTDG with psychotherapy including CBT;

if undertaken by ZTDG, would be likely to remedy Impairment 2.

The Tribunal finds that the pre-condition set out in Rule 5.4 of the Access Rules is not met because each of the above two treatments are known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical, or other treatments that would be likely to remedy Impairment 2, and ZTDG has not yet received those treatments. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that Impairment 2 is enduring, until such treatments are undertaken.
The Tribunal concludes that Impairment 2 is not, or is not likely to be, permanent.

Whether Impairments 3, 4 and/or 5 are, or are likely to be, permanent

At the hearing, Dr NL was asked to outline the treatments ZTDG was having for the "neurological conditions, specifically, Bell's Palsy and neurological pain". This is a reference to Impairments 3, 4 and 5.
Dr NL stated that ZTDG was having the following treatments:

(a) Botox injections; > > (b) immunotherapy injections (Galcanezumab) (which Dr NL said is for her migraines as well); and > > (c) medications for ZTDG's Bell's Palsy and neuropathic pain.

When asked what the expected outcomes were if ZTDG's received those neurological treatments, Dr NL stated that they were endeavouring to find out "what the FND is, and how to stabilise it". He said this condition was "still evolving" and "so it is not clear". Regarding ZTDG's "FND concerning changes", Dr NL said he is awaiting review by ZTDG's neurological team. Dr NL said they will consider whether there is anything more they can do regarding ZTDG's FND and to establish what is causing the symptoms.
When Dr NL was asked at the hearing which of ZTDG's body parts were affected by her chronic neurological pain, he referred to the Bell's Palsy on the right side of ZTDG's face. He said that ZTDG does get back pain intermittently but he said that there is "no discogenic issue". When asked whether this back pain was "under investigation", Dr NL answered "No" and said that it was intermittent and not a priority. When asked how often the back pain occurred, Dr NL did not answer the question directly and instead, remarked that it was "more the psychological issues which is causing problems". When asked if back pain as affecting ZTDG at the moment, Dr NL answered "Not at the moment".
When asked if ZTDG had any other pain issues, Dr NL said answered "Migraines, which she gets frequently". When asked if there were pain issues in ZTDG's legs, Dr NL answered "Not currently". Dr NL said that "There were issues with shooting pains I think a few months back, nerve type pains, with burning over the right side of her legs".
Dr NL gave evidence that he had referred ZTDG back to the neurologist team and that the "CT scans were unremarkable. No issues as far as we were aware".
Dr NL said that the recent urgent referral on 28 July 2025 (as mentioned above), related to her current or new diagnosis being the dizzy spells (she feels like she is going to pass out) and the absent seizures. Dr NL said that ZTDG was experiencing episodes of vagueness that she could not recall after. He said this was highly concerning. Dr NL said that ZTDG was "Smelling things that were not there". He said he thought there was something neurological going on, most likely to do with the FND. Dr NL explained that FND symptoms can change over time. Dr NL said he is awaiting the outcome of those referrals.
Dr NL was asked how many seizures ZTDG had experienced in 2025. Dr NL said that ZTDG does not suffer from epileptic seizures. He said that the closet thing this was that ZTDG had experienced "vague-ing out episodes". When asked how many of those ZTDG had experienced since 1 Jan 2025, Dr NL did not appear to certain in his knowledge about this and he provided an answer, "Probably a couple every couple of weeks". When asked if ZTDG had told Dr NL this, he said "Yes".
Dr NL stated the ZTDG's Bell's Palsy was separate from her neurological conditions but he appeared to treat them in a way such that they are interlinked.
No other medical witnesses were called to give evidence at the hearing. The best that the Tribunal can make of Dr NL's evidence at the hearing is that ZTDG experiences impairments and pain arising from Bell's Palsy and some unexplained neurological symptomatology suggested to be FND through a process of exclusion. The Tribunal considers that ZTDG's Bell's Palsy and her other unexplained neurological conditions are still evolving and are still under active intensive review as explained by Dr NL. ZTDG's treating neurologists and Dr NL are trying to ascertain the cause of the "ZTDG's FND" and whether they can do anything to assist her. On this basis, the Tribunal considers that the evolution of ZTDG's Bell's Palsy and her other neurological conditions (and Impairment 3, 4 and 5 arising from that) cannot, at this stage, be found to be enduring. The Tribunal considers that further review is required to establish whether there are other recommended known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical, or other treatments that would be likely to remedy Impairments 3, 4 or 5. Some treatment has commenced in respect of ZTDG's Bell's Palsy and the Tribunal notes that the Botox injections are providing ZTDG with a substantial degree of relief in respect of her Bell's Palsy-related symptomatology.
The Tribunal concludes that it would be premature to find that Impairments 3, 4 and 5 are, or are likely to be, permanent. The Tribunal considers that the extensive neurology review which is taking place at the moment, should be permitted to run its course to allow ZTDG's treating specialists at the neurology clinic and her general practitioner to investigate what is causing the neurological conditions (and suspected FND), and what can be done to address and treat those issues and the impairments arising from them.
For these reasons, the Tribunal concludes that at this stage, there is insufficient evidence that any of these three impairments are enduring. The Tribunal concludes that none of Impairments 3, 4 and 5 can be considered at this stage as being permanent or likely to be permanent.

Conclusion - whether ZTDG meets the disability requirements

The Tribunal has concluded that none of the Impairments 1 to 5 are, or are likely be, permanent. For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that ZTDG does not meet s 24(1)(b) of the NDIS Act in respect of those impairments. It is a mandatory for this criterion under s 24(1)(b) to be met in respect of any one or more of ZTDG's impairments. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to proceed to a consideration of the other mandatory criteria under s 24(1).
The Tribunal concludes that ZTDG does not meet the disability requirements under s 24(1) of the NDIS Act.

Whether ZTDG meets the early intervention requirements under s 25

ZTDG made his access request to the NDIA prior to the legislative amendments on 3 October 2024. The Tribunal must decide whether ZTDG meets the early intervention requirements under s 25, based on the wording of this provision as it existed prior to the legislative amendments on 3 October 2024.
Prior to the legislative amendments, s 25 of the NDIS Act provided as follows:

Early intervention requirements > > (1) A person meets the early intervention requirements if: > > (a) the person:

(i) has one or more identified intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments that are, or are likely to be, permanent; or

(ii) has one or more identified impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable and that are, or are likely to be, permanent; or

(iii) is a child who has developmental delay; and

(b) the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by reducing the person's future needs for supports in relation to disability; and

(c) the CEO is satisfied that provision of early intervention supports for the person is likely to benefit the person by:

(i) mitigating or alleviating the impact of the person's impairment upon the functional capacity of the person to undertake communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self-management; or

(ii) preventing the deterioration of such functional capacity; or

(iii) improving such functional capacity; or

(iv) strengthening the sustainability of informal supports available to the person, including through building the capacity of the person's carer.

Note: In certain circumstances, a person with a degenerative condition could meet the early intervention requirements and therefore become a participant.

(1A) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii), an impairment or impairments that are episodic or fluctuating may be taken to be permanent despite the episodic or fluctuating nature of the impairments.

(2) The CEO is taken to be satisfied as mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) if one or more of the person's impairments are prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the person does not meet the early intervention requirements if the CEO is satisfied that early intervention support for the person is not most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or through systems of service delivery or support services offered:

(a) as part of a universal service obligation; or

(b) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.

For the same reasons as set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of ZTDG impairments (that is Impairment 1 to 5 inclusive) are, or likely to be permanent. For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that ZTDG does not meet either of the criterion under subsections 25(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the NDIS Act. ZTDG does not meet the remaining criteria under s 25(1)(a)(iii) because she is not a child.
It is mandatory for ZTDG to meet at least one of the criteria under subsection 25(1)(a). The Tribunal has found that she does not meet any of them. The criteria under subsection 25(1) are cumulative and so it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the remaining criteria under subsection 25(1) of the NDIS Act. Nor does the Tribunal need to consider whether the circumstances set out in subsection 25(3) apply in ZTDG's case.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that ZTDG does not meet the "early intervention requirements" under s 25 of the NDIS Act.

The Tribunal has concluded that ZTDG does not meet the "disability requirements" under s 24 of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal has also concluded that ZTDG does not meet the "early intervention requirements" under s 25 of the NDIS Act.
For these reasons, the Tribunal concludes that ZTDG does not meet the access criteria under s 21 of the NDIS Act. This means ZTDG will not be granted access as a participant in the NDIS.
The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.

I certify that the preceding 191 (one-ninety-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member K. Parker

...............................[SGD]....................................

30 and 31 July 2025 and 1, 5 and 14 August 2025

In person with support from her disability advocate

[1] T-Documents, T1A & T2. The 'T-Documents' are a set of documents lodged by the NDIA under s 37 of the now repealed Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

[7] This issue was not in dispute between the parties.

[10] Actual name of Ms JP and the Program has been omitted to protect the confidentiality of ZTDG and C.

[17] Subject to the following pages, 86-90, 91-98, 185-187, and 189-190, which are the subject to an order made by the Tribunal (as presently constituted) on 2 September 2025 under subsections 70(1) and (2) of the ART Act, prohibiting the disclosure of any information contained on those pages to any third party or the publication of any information contained on those pages in this Statement of Reasons.

[18] Exhibit R2. The documents comprised downloaded copies of documents appearing as hyperlinks in the NDIA's SFIC.

[20] Actual name omitted to maintain the confidentiality of the identity of ZTDG.

[23] Dr NL had not been summoned to give evidence in this proceeding by either party. Without a summons, the Tribunal could not compel Dr NL to appear to give evidence, other than when he was willing to do so.

[26] Exhibit 3, lodged with the Tribunal on 4 August 2025.

[27] ZTDG's date of birth is set out in her Application for Review of Decision form lodged with the former AAT. T-Documents T1/2.

[36] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002, [69] ('Davis').

[37] ZTDG's SLE is contained within Exhibit R1.

[38] JHTB, page 46 to 50. At the hearing, Ms VL confirmed that she had prepared this witness statement and did so when she was alone. Ms VL said she prepared the statement between 3 and 7 July 2025 and gave it to Mr G on 7 July 2025.

[49] Ibid. The reference to "Carers SA" is a reference to an organisation of the same name which is described to be the peak advocacy body for Carers in South Australia.

[53] ZTDG's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (entitled 'Response to National Disability Insurance Agency's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions') dated 1 April 2025, which will be referred to in this Statement of Reasons as 'ZTDG's SFIC', at page 1.

[61] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Association, 2022.

[63] ZTDG said the obsessive-compulsive behaviours were not present before she had met her ex-husband. ZTDG said she had met her ex-husband in 2008 at which time they were working in the same company. ZTDG confirmed that by about 2011, she had noticed that she was engaging in obsessive-compulsive behaviours. ZTDG does not claim that she has a condition of obsessive compulsive disorder so the Tribunal has not considered whether she has this condition and any impairment/s arising from it.

[64] The Tribunal notes that in Davis at [64] - [75] that Mortimer CJ raised a question about the validity of Rules 5.4 and 5.6 being exclusionary in effect. No submission was made by either party in this application as to the validity of these two rules. As an aside, the Tribunal notes that this issue was considered recently in Kelly v National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] FCA 1462 and McEvoy J is of the view that Rule 5.4 is valid.

Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016(Cth)

Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024(Cth)

Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Review Tribunal Act 2024

Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/artatpn1a2024807/index.html) [1) Act 2024

Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/ndisatnbotn1a2024683/index.html) [1) Act 2024

ZTDG and Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2862 (19 September 2025)

Kelly v National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] FCA 1462

National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002

ZTDG and Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2862 (19 September 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (139 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (7)

Cases Cited (3)

ZTDG and Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2862 (19 September 2025)