AAT just smacked the Agency's approach to the health boundary. The need for the support was rooted in the disability not the health condition. I think we might see a JR on this one. austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdo… 
Deputy President Constance gets the heart of the soft law nature of a lot of the NDIS approaches. The Agency does have a very clear policy on clinical versus function boundary. It just doesn't (in his view) reflect the language of paragraph 7.4 of the rules. Ouch.
Interesting the Agency didn't table any actuarial evidence about the cost of diabetic support for PwD who cannot self-administer injections. It is likely a pretty high figure - one they'll have to plan around. They tabled it financial projects in other cases, but not here.
Er, glad the tribunal didn't adopt the vision of the evidential onus on #NDIS participants that underpins this submission (!)
Great smackdown of onus here - this is a search for the preferable answer, you pony your info, they pony up theirs. Agency should focus on positively defending their approaches, not approaching it as a tennis match where families gaze at cryptic internal review outcomes
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
