Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
I 2018 92 • VG SZ I 2018 92 KI-generiert

Disability Benefits Claimant v. Administrative Authority: Sufficiency of Medical Evidence and Duty to Order Expert Examination

Geschäftsnummer I 2018 92
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The appellant sought an assessment of their residual work capacity by a medical expert, but the lower authority denied this request, relying instead on existing medical documentation, which the appellant challenged as insufficient for a proper assessment of their claim for disability insurance benefits. The court reasoned that while the administrative body has discretion in ordering further expert examinations, this discretion is limited by the duty to adequately investigate the facts of the case, meaning that if the existing medical evidence is manifestly insufficient or contradictory regarding the claimant's capacity to work, the authority must order a new medical assessment to fulfill its obligation to establish the facts objectively.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Disability Benefits Claimant v. Administrative Authority: Sufficiency of Medical Evidence and Duty to Order Expert Examination: The court reasoned that while the administrative body has discretion in ordering further expert examinations, this discretion is limited by the duty to adequately investigate the facts of the case, meaning that if the existing medical evidence is manifestly insufficient or contradictory regarding the claimant's capacity to work, the authority must order a new medical assessment to fulfill its obligation to establish the facts objectively.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Invaliditätsbemessung Untersuchungsgrundsatz medizinische Beweismittel Ermessen der Verwaltung Begründungsdichte Versicherungsleistungsanspruch Invalidenversicherung (Leistungen) | Invalidenversicherung
KI-generiert

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n I 2018 92 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 14. Dezember 2018 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Gion Tomaschett, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. Bernhard Zumsteg, Richter Dr.med. Urs Gössi, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Joëlle Sigrist, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n IV-Stelle Schwyz, Rechtsdienst, Postfach 53, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Invalidenversicherung (Leistungen) |\n \n\n

\n \n

Sachverhalt: