NNFXT by his nominee, QKMBR and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (Guidance and Appeals Panel)
[2026] ARTA 308
“These opinions cannot be given decisive weight in these circumstances.”
What the record established
Not a pain case. NNFXT is a young man with intractable epilepsy, a severe intellectual impairment and autism. It's here because it's a Guidance and Appeals Panel decision on supports, and what it says about evidence applies to any support request.
His family asked for a registered nurse 24 hours a day, 2:1 active support overnight, and 3:1 support in the community [6]. The Agency had funded high intensity support workers supervised by a registered nurse instead [7].
The opinions behind the request came from his neurologist and from a behaviour support practitioner the Agency itself commissioned. Both rested on accounts from his parents, given during the dispute, and neither was based on direct observation [164]. The most recent seizure records were from July 2024. Newer ones were asked for, including by summons, and none were produced [163].
What carried it
The nursing request failed before the evidence was weighed. Nursing for a chronic health condition is declared not to be an NDIS support, and the neurologist's opinion couldn't change that. Its implication “would simply be that this support must be sourced from the health system” [149].
The overnight request failed on value for money. The objective record, at most three seizures a night and usually under five minutes each, didn't show why the funded overnight support wasn't enough [164]. The opinions saying otherwise were accepted as sincerely held, but “These opinions cannot be given decisive weight in these circumstances” [164].
The community request failed on the plan itself. Only 8% of the funding for community participation had been used [173], and the Panel found it “cannot represent value for money” to add funding while existing funding sat unused [176].
NNFXTat [164]
It is not an opinion based on direct observations of the Applicant.
Said of the treating neurologist. The Agency's own expert was discounted for the same reason.
NNFXTat [23]
the Applicant does bear the practical onus of placing before the Tribunal, or pointing to material before the Tribunal, that can persuade it that the support in dispute is reasonable and necessary
No one else is obliged to prove the case for a support.
NNFXTat [176]
It cannot represent value for money for the purposes of the paragraph 34(1)(c) criteria to approve additional funding for community participation in circumstances where there is underutilisation of existing funding to such a significant extent.
How the current plan has been used is evidence too.
Read the decision
NNFXT by his nominee, QKMBR and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2026] ARTA 308
Published in full on AustLII, and citable by that reference.
Read with KDKJ [2026] ARTA 1166. The same Deputy President, later in 2026, on what makes a practitioner's evidence carry weight.
These are published Tribunal decisions, not my clients. They're summarised to show what the records in each matter did and didn't establish. Nothing here is a prediction about any other matter, and no outcome is implied. Every decision turns on its own evidence.