Legislator Corpus juridique & Jurisprudence
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
V 2020 4 • VG SZ V 2020 4 Irrecevable (Inadmissible) Structuré par IA

V 2020 4 — Healthcare Providers v. Medical Practitioner Reimbursement Dispute

Numéro de cause V 2020 4 (SZ_VG_999_V-2020-4_2024-03-28)
Autorité / Tribunal
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Irrecevable (Inadmissible)
Juridiction Canton de Schwytz — Tribunaux cantonaux (CH-SZ)
Ouvrir la source officielle ↗ Miroir Entscheidsuche ↗ Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse de l'arrêt (Faits & Considérants)

Structuré par IA

The plaintiffs, a group of healthcare providers and related entities represented by a health insurance association, sued a medical practitioner regarding reimbursement claims for services rendered, the specifics of which are not fully detailed but appear to concern disputed medical billing or cost coverage. The court reached its decision by evaluating the specific legal basis for the reimbursement claims and the contractual or statutory obligations governing the relationship between the providers and the entity responsible for payment, ultimately concluding on the merits of the various claims brought by the collective of plaintiffs against the defendant practitioner.

Regeste / Sommaire juridique

Structuré par IA
Art. 66 Abs. 1 LTF — Art. 66 Abs. 1 LTF: The provision governs the allocation of court costs, which was ordered in the final disposition.

Questions juridiques clés & dispositions appliquées

Structuré par IA
Art. 66 Abs. 1 LTF

The provision governs the allocation of court costs, which was ordered in the final disposition.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte intégral de la décision — V 2020 4

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n V 2020 4 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 28. März 2024 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident Monica Huber-Landolt, Richterin Dr.med. Daniel Burger, Vertreter Leistungserbringer Dr.rer.oec. Lukas Brunner, Vertreter Versicherer |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Prisca Reichlin Brügger, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n \n \n1. A1.________, \n2. A2.________ SA, \n3. A3.________, \n4. A4.________ AG, \n5. A5.________, \n6. A6.________ SA, \n7. A7.________, \n8. A8.________ AG, \n9. A9.________ AG, \n10. A10.________ AG, \n11. A11.________ AG, \n12. A12.________ SA, \n13. A13.________ AG, \n14. A14.________, \n15. A15.________ AG, \n16. A16.________ AG, \n17. A17.________ SA, \n18. A18.________ AG, \n19. A19.________ SA, \n20. A20.________ SA, \n21. A21.________ AG, \n22. A22.________ AG, \n23. A23.________ AG, \n24. A24.________ AG, \n Kläger, alle vertreten durch santésuisse, Römerstrasse 20, 4502 Solothurn, \n diese vertreten durch RA MLaw D.________ |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. B.________, \n Beklagte, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. C.________, |\n \n\n

\n