Henri and Shirley
Content Warning: These stories are about violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and may include references to suicide or self-harming behaviours. They may contain graphic descriptions and strong language and may be distressing. Some narratives may be about First Nations people who have passed away. If you need support, please see Contact & support.
Doctors recently amputated Henri’s leg.
Henri’s therapist, Shirley, told the Royal Commission that the NDIS denied him an appropriate wheelchair, setting back his recovery.
‘The impact on [Henri] has been extreme as he now has less function [than when he was discharged from hospital].’
When Henri left hospital recently, an inexperienced therapist prescribed a wheelchair similar to the one the hospital had loaned him. Shirley said that type of wheelchair wasn’t strong or stable enough for Henri.
Shirley helped Henri apply to the NDIS for a safer wheelchair. She said that a few months later, the NDIS approved the original inappropriate wheelchair – apparently because it was cheaper.
‘For an NDIS employee to ask why a person needs a $5000 chair when they have all the clinical justification, as well as evidence that it is cost effective, is discriminatory and also ignorant.’
Six months later, Henri still had no suitable wheelchair.
‘He has now had six falls as the [original] chair has a wheel in disrepair which fails and tips him out of his chair.’
Shirley said Henri is ‘becoming more and more depressed and scared of falling’.
‘The delay in getting an essential piece of equipment when it was marked as urgent and … reportedly marked by NDIS as high priority is appalling and amounts to abuse.’
Shirley told the Royal Commission that the cost of treating Henri’s injuries, and the extra therapy needed to help him recover, exceeded the cost of the appropriate wheelchair.
‘Critical equipment should not be caught up by people that do not understand what they are approving or deciding on.’
Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who shared their personal experience with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability through a submission or private session. The names in this story are pseudonyms. The person who shared this experience was not a witness and their account is not evidence. They did not take an oath or affirmation before providing the story. Nothing in this story constitutes a finding of the Royal Commission. Any views expressed are those of the person who shared their experience, not of the Royal Commission.