top of page
Search

ART Win for Participants: Maintenance Funding for Assistance Animal Approved & Longer Plan Secured

  • Writer: Tomika Hillebrand
    Tomika Hillebrand
  • Mar 2
  • 3 min read

Updated: Mar 15

A recent decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia (ARTA) has set an important precedent for NDIS participants who rely on assistance animals. In DRVV and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 158, Member Justin Toohey set aside the NDIA’s previous decisions and directed the Agency to include sufficient funding to meet the maintenance expenses for the Applicant’s assistance animal. Additionally, the Member instructed that the participant could have a two-year plan instead of the standard 12-month plan.


Case Overview

The Applicant, DRVV, is a man in his forties who has been an NDIS participant since September 2018. He resides with his dog, R, and cat, while his family lives interstate. DRVV has Autism (Level 3), severe anxiety, and clinical depression.


He applied to the NDIS for funding to cover the maintenance costs of his assistance animal, but the application was refused on the basis that the animal was not trained by an accredited organisation. An internal review of this decision upheld the refusal, leading DRVV to seek a review by the Tribunal.


Key Issues Considered

The Tribunal examined whether the supports requested met the definition of “reasonable and necessary” under the NDIS Act, including:


  • Whether the assistance animal was directly related to the Applicant’s disability needs.

  • Whether funding for the animal’s maintenance was value for money.

  • Whether there were lower-cost alternatives that could achieve the same outcome.


The Applicant’s Evidence

To support his claim, DRVV provided:


  • A letter from a registered Guide, Hearing, and Assistance Dog trainer, confirming that his dog was suitable for training as an assistance animal.

  • Training modules provided by the trainer, which the Applicant used to train his dog.

  • Detailed training logs demonstrating a structured and well-documented approach.

  • A letter of support explaining how the assistance animal alleviated his disability symptoms, including:

    • Assisting with social interaction and communication.

    • Guiding him safely through open spaces and crowded areas to prevent overwhelming panic attacks.

  • Oral testimony confirming that the dog performed essential tasks such as:

    • Blocking: Preventing people from getting too close.

    • Alerting: Recognising and responding to episodes.

    • Responding: Assisting when episodes occur.


Tribunal’s Decision

Member Toohey ruled in favour of DRVV, stating:


“I accept that there are three tasks or behaviours for assessing under the guidelines and consider that the assistance provided by R is related to DRVV’s disability. The use of R is related to the Applicant’s autism and panic attacks.”

The Tribunal determined that the requested funding of $4,800 per year for the dog's maintenance was reasonable, as it did not include purchase or initial training costs. It also found that no lower-cost alternatives would achieve the same outcome.


Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed that assistance animals are a form of NDIS support and are not excluded under the Transitional Rules. It concluded that the dog’s maintenance was most appropriately funded through the NDIS, as it was directly related to the Applicant’s disability and not available under another system of support.


Approval of a Two-Year Plan

DRVV also requested a longer plan duration to minimise the distress associated with frequent reassessments, which he stated caused significant anxiety and suicidal ideations.


The Tribunal considered reports from the Applicant’s occupational therapist and psychologist and ultimately agreed, ruling:


“In my view, the identified risks to the safety and wellbeing of the Applicant outweigh the policy and systems considerations put forward by the Agency. These risks are a basis for departing from the Agency’s policy regarding plan duration.”

The decision was made in accordance with Section 31 of the NDIS Act, which states that, as far as reasonably practicable, reassessments should:


  • Be directed by the participant.

  • Be underpinned by the participant’s right to exercise choice and control over their life.

  • Maximise the participant’s choice and independence.

  • Facilitate tailored and flexible responses to individual goals and needs.


Implications of the Decision

This ruling sets an important precedent for NDIS participants seeking funding for assistance animals, particularly those trained outside of accredited programs. It underscores key principles, including:


  • The value of lived experience in NDIS decision-making.

  • The recognition of assistance animals as essential disability supports.

  • The importance of allowing longer NDIS plans for participants with significant mental health challenges.


For advocates, disability support workers, and NDIS participants, this decision highlights the importance of challenging unjust refusals and ensuring that supports are assessed fairly based on individual needs, rather than rigid policy interpretations.


Reference:

Case publication:


Outcome first seen on Assistance Paws Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/assistancepaws




 
 
bottom of page