Saxon State Social Court, 21.01.2014, Ref.: L 5 R 689/12
In contrast to the principle of negotiation that applies in civil jurisdiction, the principle of official investigation applies in social jurisdiction (Section 103 SGG). This states that the court must investigate the facts of the case ex officio.
The parties involved must therefore be consulted when determining the facts of the case, but they are not burdened with introducing all the facts and evidence into the process themselves.
However, this principle of official investigation is interrupted, for example, in the case of claims for a pension due to reduced earning capacity (early retirement) by § 109 SGG.
If the plaintiff files an application under Section 109 SGG in such proceedings, the court is obliged to obtain an expert opinion from a doctor to be nominated by the plaintiff. This right of application ensures the necessary equality of opportunity before the court, as the plaintiff regularly has no medical expertise available.
Such an expert opinion is then not considered a party opinion, but a neutral opinion.
In the above-mentioned judgement of the Saxon State Social Court, the court had to decide whether a claimant with multiple qualifications had to be assessed as fully or partially disabled due to an accident at work.
Facts: Professional career and health restrictions of the plaintiff
The plaintiff, born in 1952, trained as a roofer from 1966 to 1969 and worked in this profession until 1973. He then switched to the field of professional lorry driver and obtained his skilled worker qualification in 1978. Further stages of his professional career include working as a warehouse worker, construction worker and again as a professional lorry driver. In 2008, he suffered an accident at work that resulted in serious injuries. This prevented him from continuing his work. As a result, he applied for a reduced earning capacity pension in 2009 and 2011, which was rejected both times.
Legal disputes: pension applications and expert opinions
The claimant brought an action against the rejection notices. The Chemnitz Social Court dismissed the claim in 2012 and argued that the claimant could be referred to a reasonable job as a porter. The claimant lodged an appeal, emphasising a deterioration in his state of health. He suffered from persistent pain in his knee, numbness and difficulty walking, which prevented him from carrying out the reasonable activities.
Judgement of the Saxon State Social Court: Entitlement to partial reduced earning capacity pension
The Saxon State Social Court partially upheld the appeal. It ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a pension for partial reduction in earning capacity due to occupational disability from 1 February 2011. The claimant was no longer able to carry out his last occupation as a professional lorry driver due to his health restrictions. However, he was able to carry out light work, such as that of a porter, for at least six hours a day. There is no entitlement to a full reduction in earning capacity as he is still able to work.
Legal basis and assessment of occupational disability
The court based its decision on Section 240 SGB VI, which defines insured persons as unfit for work if they are unable to work more than six hours a day due to health restrictions. The assessment of occupational disability was based on the plaintiff's last occupation, in this case professional driver. Despite the restrictions, the court recognised that the plaintiff did not have a full reduction in earning capacity in accordance with Section 43 SGB VI. The decisive factor was the assessment that the claimant could be referred to an occupation that was socially and health-wise reasonable for him.
This decision emphasises that subjective complaints alone do not justify an entitlement to a reduced earning capacity pension as long as objective expert opinions confirm an earning capacity.
Source: Saxon State 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.