Facts
The 1972-born B. registered for disability benefits with the Disability Insurance (IV) office of the Canton of St. Gallen on September 16, 1997. The IV office obtained various expert opinions, including a psychiatric consultation by Dr. med. S. in 1998. After the treating psychiatrist Dr. med. A. had claimed that B. was only capable of working in a protected environment, the IV office ordered a further psychiatric assessment by Dr. med. S., which took place on September 18, 2002 and attested an 80% work capacity.
Since the job placement was unsuccessful and the general practitioner Dr. med. V. certified a work capacity of only 50%, the IV office informed B. on July 2, 2003 that a further medical clarification by Dr. med. S. was planned. B. rejected this, as he had already been to this psychiatrist twice and felt he had not been treated correctly. The IV office maintained the assessment by Dr. med. S. and issued a decision on July 29, 2003, rejecting the insured's objections to the person of the expert.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the order for an assessment by the administration does not have to be issued in the form of a decision according to the procedural regulations of the ATSG. It is an actual act that does not have the character of a decision.
However, formal objections relating to grounds for recusal and substantive objections concerning issues of evidence…