Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
I 2017 77 • VG SZ I 2017 77 Generato dall'IA

Appeal Against Cantonal Social Insurance Decision on Disability Benefits

Numero d'incarto I 2017 77
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The case concerns an appeal challenging a decision by the cantonal social insurance office regarding disability insurance benefits, where the appellant, represented by counsel, contested the assessment of their physical condition by the authority. The court upheld the decision, reasoning that the medical evidence provided, particularly the expert opinion, adequately supported the administrative finding that the appellant had not met the legal threshold for recognizing a significant reduction in earning capacity required to qualify for the disability benefits sought.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 65 BGG, Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG; Appeal Against Cantonal Social Insurance Decision on Disability Benefits: The court upheld the decision, reasoning that the medical evidence provided, particularly the expert opinion, adequately supported the administrative finding that the appellant had not met the legal threshold for recognizing a significant reduction in earning capacity required to qualify for the disability benefits sought.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
prestazioni dell'assicurazione invalidità riduzione delle prestazioni vertenza di assicurazione sociale perizia giuridica godimento dei diritti civili valutazione della capacità di guadagno Invalidenversicherung (Rentenleistungen der IV) | Invalidenversicherung

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 65 BGG

The appeal is declared inadmissible because the appellant failed to provide payment for the court fee.

Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG

The appellant is ordered to pay the court costs because the appeal was inadmissible.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n I 2017 77 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 10. Januar 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. Urs Gössi, Richter Dr.med. Pierre Lichtenhahn, 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 Beschwerdeführer, \n verbeiständet durch B.________, Amtsbeistandschaft 1, \n Postfach 1241, 6431 Schwyz, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. Rainer Deecke, \n Industriestrasse 13c, Postfach 7555, 6302 Zug, |\n

\n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n IV-Stelle Schwyz, Rechtsdienst, Postfach 53, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n

\n