Cincotta and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Cincotta, reviewed by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Cincotta's impairments met the threshold required for a DSP, specifically whether his impairment rating was 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables and whether he had a continuing inability to work. The review was heard by Dr I Alexander, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Cincotta's assessed level of impairment, as determined by the Impairment Tables, reached the required 20 points, and whether he possessed a continuing inability to work, both as stipulated by section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the medical evidence and treatment history presented by Mr Cincotta, including his diagnoses and the efficacy of his prescribed medications and therapies, within the relevant qualification period.

The Senior Member considered Mr Cincotta's mental health history, noting a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood in August 2018, which was considered temporary. While Mr Cincotta experienced ongoing stress related to a legal dispute and continued to receive therapy, a new diagnosis of Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia emerged in July 2019, shortly before his claim for DSP was lodged. Treatment for this new condition commenced less than a month prior to the claim date and was intermittent during the qualification period. The Senior Member accepted that Mr Cincotta experienced an increase in mental health symptoms, which were diagnosed and treated at the time. However, based on the evidence available during the qualification period, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Cincotta's total impairment rating reached 20 points.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Cincotta did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act and therefore did not qualify for the DSP. The decision under review was affirmed.