NDIS & Disability Law

From the NDIA notices, plans, internal review decisions and Tribunal correspondence the lawyer uploads, extract every decision with its date of notice, whether the notice says it is reviewable, the 3-month internal review deadline, the 90-day point after an internal review request, the 28-day Tribunal deadline, plan reassessment dates and any nominee or guardian on the file.

The lawyer checks each date against the notice itself, decides whether each decision is in fact reviewable, confirms when the notice was received rather than dated, and enters the deadlines in the firm's diary system.

From the treating and assessment reports the lawyer has selected, extract each statement about impairment, permanence, functional capacity and the support sought into a table set against the access requirements or against each s 34 criterion for the disputed support, citing report and page, and list the criteria with no evidence against them.

The lawyer reads each report against the table, decides whether the evidence actually meets each criterion, identifies what further report is needed and from whom, and rejects any entry the tool has paraphrased beyond what the author said.

Working with the lawyer from the decision notice, the evidence-to-criteria table and the firm's template, draft the written request for review under s 100: the decision under review, what the person wants instead, the grounds criterion by criterion and the list of enclosed reports.

The lawyer settles the grounds, checks every reference to a report against that report, confirms the outcome sought is one the reviewer can give, and confirms the request is made within 3 months after notice and by a person entitled to make it.

Index the documents the NDIA lodges with the Tribunal and the participant's own evidence set, match them item by item, and list reports, letters and requests that appear in one set but not the other, with dates and page counts.

The lawyer confirms the matching, decides which missing items to put before the Tribunal, and checks whether anything the participant gave the NDIA was not before the decision-maker.

Working with the lawyer from the issues list, the evidence-to-criteria table and the firm's precedent, draft the letter asking the treating or independent expert the questions the Tribunal must answer, with the documents to be provided and the Expert Evidence Practice Direction obligations attached.

The lawyer settles the questions so they do not lead the expert, decides which documents the expert receives, and checks the letter against the Tribunal's Expert Evidence Practice Direction before it is sent.

The tool writes nothing into the statement or statutory declaration. It may produce a strictly tabular, source-tagged list of the documents the participant has referred to, and check the finished statement against the Tribunal's formal requirements.

The lawyer takes the participant's or carer's account in their own words, records it, and confirms it reflects their own recollection and experience before it is signed.

Working with the lawyer from the decision, the reconciled documents and the expert reports, draft the facts with page references and the contentions for each disputed support set against each s 34 criterion, for the lawyer to settle.

The lawyer settles every contention, checks each fact against the evidence cited, checks any authority cited exists and supports the proposition, and decides whether disclosure of AI use is required.

From the request, the plan and the reports the lawyer supplies, extract the support, its cost and the evidence offered into a table beside the relevant NDIS supports list entries and the s 34 criteria. The tool does not write the advice.

The lawyer decides whether the support falls within or outside the NDIS supports lists, whether another system such as health or education is responsible, whether each s 34 criterion is met, and writes the advice.

Working with the lawyer from the behaviour support plan, the authorisation record and the provider's monthly reports, list each regulated restrictive practice in the plan, whether it is authorised under the local scheme, its expiry, and whether its use has been reported, and flag gaps.

The lawyer decides whether each practice is authorised under the law of the State or Territory where it is used, whether any use was unauthorised and is a reportable incident, and what the provider must do now.

From the provider's incident records, shift notes and emails the lawyer supplies, build a timeline showing when each staff member and the provider became aware of the incident, the incident type, and the 24-hour and 5-day report due times computed from awareness.

The lawyer decides whether the incident is a reportable incident and of which type, fixes when the provider became aware, and checks whether the reports were lodged on time.

From the Commission's notice and the provider's records, extract each allegation into a table with the evidence the Commission relies on and the documents the client holds against it, and index the client's records. The tool writes nothing in the submissions.

The lawyer writes the submissions, decides what to concede and what to contest, advises on the immediate-danger ground and on review in the Tribunal, and checks every fact relied on.

Draft the service agreement from the provider's validated template using the participant's plan details, the supports to be delivered, prices, cancellation terms and complaint contacts.

The lawyer validates the template once against the NDIS service agreement guidance and the provider's registration obligations, then checks the variable fields for each participant are complete and match the plan.

From the applicant's treating reports, assessments and identity and residence documents the lawyer has selected, build an index listing each document, its author, date and the access requirement it is offered for, and a checklist of the access request's required parts.

The lawyer confirms the evidence set is complete for the requirements relied on, decides whether to lodge now or wait for further evidence given the limits on new access requests, and approves the request.

Working with the lawyer from the current plan, the change in circumstances and the new reports, draft the request for a plan variation or reassessment, setting out what has changed, the supports affected and the evidence enclosed.

The lawyer decides whether a variation or a reassessment is the right route, checks every statement about the participant's circumstances against the evidence, and confirms the participant or nominee approves the request.

Working with the lawyer from the notice of the budget reduction, the plan and the treating evidence, draft the variation request explaining the participant's high support needs and the effect of the reduction, with the evidence attached.

The lawyer confirms the reduction is not itself reviewable and that the variation route applies, settles the request, and checks each statement about support needs against the evidence.

From the correspondence with the NDIA's representatives, case event outcomes and the lawyer's file notes, log each position, offer and concession with its date, author and the supports and amounts concerned.

The lawyer checks each entry against the correspondence, marks what is without prejudice, and uses the log to advise the participant on resolution.

From the NDIA's proposal, the plan and the evidence-to-criteria table, set out side by side what the participant sought, what is offered and what is left out. The tool does not write the advice.

The lawyer advises the participant or nominee on the merits of accepting, the prospects at hearing and the effect on the plan, and records the instructions.

Working with the lawyer from the notice, the provider's records and the remediation steps taken, draft the response and a remediation plan that answers each requirement in the notice with the evidence for it.

The lawyer settles the response, checks every statement of what has been done against the records, decides what to contest, and confirms the provider can meet the dates it commits to.

From the implementing provider's use records, the authorisations and the monthly reports lodged with the Commission, match each use to an authorisation and a reported entry, and list uses with no authorisation or no report.

The lawyer decides whether any unmatched use was unauthorised, whether it must be reported as a reportable incident, and what the provider must correct.

Working with the lawyer from the provider's policies, procedures, staff records and service records, map documents to each applicable NDIS Practice Standard and draft the evidence index for the auditor, flagging standards with thin evidence.

The lawyer checks the mapping against the Practice Standards, decides which gaps must be fixed before the audit, and confirms nothing is offered to the auditor that the provider cannot stand behind.

From the NDIA's notice and the participant's records, extract a dated table of the grounds stated, the evidence relied on and the participant's current supports. The tool does not write the advice.

The lawyer advises on whether the grounds are made out, the evidence needed to answer them, the review route and timing, and what happens to supports in the meantime.