Federal Social Court, 22/03/2012, Ref.: B 8 SO 30/10 R
Integration assistance for people with disabilities is a compulsory benefit whose legal basis is codified in SGB IX and SGB XII.
Persons who are substantially limited in their ability to participate in society due to a disability within the meaning of Section 2 (1) sentence 1 SGB IX or who are at risk of such a substantial disability are eligible.
However, the prerequisite for receiving integration assistance is that there is a prospect that the task of integration assistance can also be fulfilled according to the particularities of the individual case, in particular the type or severity of the disability.
Following the application by the person in need of assistance, the competent social welfare office will therefore consult socio-medical and socio-educational reports when assessing the granting of benefits.
Integration assistance measures can be, for example
-
-
- Assistance with further vocational training or retraining
- Provision of orthopaedic or other aids
- Help with obtaining and maintaining a home
- Assistance in participating in life in the community.
-
In the case of school-age children, measures can also be subsidised that serve to improve the child's integration into everyday school life. In the above-mentioned legal dispute, the Federal Social Court had to decide whether the defendant authority was obliged to cover the costs of so-called "Montessori therapy" for the child as part of integration assistance.
Montessori therapy is a special form of educational therapy that provides holistic support for (disabled) children by combining motor, sensory, social-emotional and cognitive learning.
Introduction: The case and the plaintiff
In this case, a plaintiff born in 1998 appealed against a rejection decision by the responsible defendant. The plaintiff suffered from a speech development delay with auditory memory impairment, which is why the defendant initially covered the costs of "Montessori individual therapy" during her kindergarten years. After she started school, the defendant continued to cover the costs for a few months, but refused further funding from 1 January 2006. The defendant justified this by stating that integration assistance in accordance with the Social Code (SGB XII) was only granted for accompanying assistance and that educational measures such as Montessori therapy were the responsibility of the school.
The complaint and the judgement of the social court
As the claimant's parents had to bear the costs of the therapy themselves in the first half of 2006, the claimant brought an action before the social court. She demanded full reimbursement of the costs incurred in the amount of 1,181.50 euros. The social court ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay half of the costs (590.75 euros). The reasoning was based on the fact that integration assistance was partially utilised, but that the educational nature of the therapy did not fall entirely within the scope of integration assistance.
Appeal proceedings before the regional social court
Both parties appealed against the judgement of the social court. The Regional Social Court (LSG) partially overturned the judgement of the Social Court and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. It ordered the defendant to pay the entire costs of the Montessori therapy in the amount of 1,181.50 euros. The LSG considered the therapy to be a necessary measure to ensure the plaintiff's participation in school lessons and therefore a form of integration assistance.
Decision of the Federal Social Court
The defendant then lodged an appeal with the Federal Social Court (BSG). The BSG overturned the judgement of the LSG and referred the case back for a further decision. The BSG found that the legal requirements for the full assumption of costs pursuant to Section 15 para. 1 sentence 4 SGB IX were not clearly clarified. In particular, it was necessary to examine whether the defendant had wrongly refused to assume the costs and whether the therapy carried out was necessary for the plaintiff's compulsory education. However, the appeal judgement lacked sufficient findings in this regard, which is why the proceedings were referred back to the LSG for further clarification.
Summary: Important legal issues and outlook
The case revolves around the question of whether Montessori therapy is to be considered an integration assistance measure within the meaning of SGB XII and to what extent an authority must reimburse the costs of self-procured services if it originally rejected them. Essentially, the question is whether the therapy was necessary to enable the claimant to participate in school life. In its judgement, the Federal Social Court emphasised that further findings are required in order to answer this question conclusively. This shows that the distinction between educational measures and integration assistance within the meaning of social legislation must continue to be considered in a differentiated manner.
Source: Federal Social Court
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent you in social law.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.