Sophia
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.
‘I will take this matter the whole way if needs be, because I cannot allow NDIA to set a precedent for mistreating disabled people like me in the future.’
Sophia lives with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and vestibular brain damage. She lives in a regional town that has been heavily impacted by COVID-19 restrictions.
Sophia’s daughter, her primary carer, is a support worker studying occupational therapy. She uses a swim spa with one of her clients and suggested Sophia would benefit from this therapy.
So Sophia applied for a swim spa but the NDIA rejected her application. ‘The grounds for refusal were vague.’ They were unsure about local council regulations and the ability of her family to supervise her.
If the NDIA had contacted Sophia, she would have told them about her daughter’s experience and that there are no regulations concerning swim spas.
Instead, they contacted Sophia’s NDIS support coordinator and suggested Sophia appeal the decision.
Sophia did appeal, but she told the Royal Commission this has impacted her ‘physically, financially, psychologically, legally and medically’.
She said the approach to her case was ‘highly litigious, adversarial and incompetent’. Sophia believes ‘it’s followed an insurance company model’ which is incompatible for people with disabilities and mental health issues.
The case manager suggested her occupational therapist add the council regulations to her report and that Sophia find a physiotherapist qualified to supervise her for swimming and hydrotherapy.
Sophia said she was lucky to find a physiotherapist in a regional area and during COVID-19 who was qualified in aqua therapy and willing to come to her home for weekly sessions.
NDIA requested further information from the physiotherapist and from Sophia’s psychologist but wouldn’t let Sophia see the questions.
The psychologist was annoyed because he had already answered the questions in previous reports funded through Sophia’s NDIS plan.
The physiotherapist was asked about Sophia’s history which she couldn’t answer – she’d not worked with Sophia before.
The NDIA insisted the physiotherapist provide the information and agreed to pay her for her time.
The physiotherapist completed the questions as best she could. But then the NDIA lawyer inadvertently copied the physiotherapist into an email complaining about her responses and stating the physiotherapist ‘did not deserve to be paid’. When the NDIA realised the error, the lawyer sent her ‘a legal notice demanding she delete the email’.
The physiotherapist was unimpressed and withdrew her services.
‘NDIA have tarnished my reputation within my small local community’s allied health professionals and made it difficult to find and secure health workers,’ Sophia said.
The stress caused Sophia ‘an immediate loss of progress made in therapy’, prevented her from focusing on speech and occupational therapy sessions and resulted in increased time with the psychologist. The process ‘drained support coordinator hours’ and her doctor appointments ‘focused on answering the NDIA’s growing list of questions’.
‘NDIA have demonstrated that they are “playing hardball,” are “trying to back themselves out of a corner” and are certainly not interested in an early resolution of this matter.’
Sophia wonders how much money is being wasted on this matter. She suggests if the matter goes to tribunal she ‘could buy a lot of swim spas’ with the money it will cost.
But Sophia is determined to pursue the matter and has complained to the minister.
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.