Facts
M., born in 1954, was insured with the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA) against the consequences of accidents as a cleaning lady at X. AG. On June 29, 2002, she injured her right foot while cleaning windows. SUVA acknowledged its obligation to provide benefits and provided the statutory benefits. After an initially satisfactory healing process, M. reported a relapse to SUVA on February 21, 2006, which SUVA also acknowledged.
By order dated November 21, 2009 and objection decision dated May 17, 2011, SUVA awarded M. an integrity compensation due to a loss of 15% and, as of November 1, 2009, a disability pension with a degree of disability of 10%. M. filed a complaint against this decision.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the admissibility of the DAP method for determining the disability income. The DAP is a collection of descriptions of actually existing jobs in Switzerland, which allows SUVA to determine the disability income as concretely as possible in accordance with the court requirements.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appellant's fundamental objections to the use of the DAP method. The DAP method makes it possible to better take into account the specific individual case than the LSE method and therefore comes closer to the goal of determining the disability income based on the professional and earning situation of the insured person.
The Federal Supreme Court held that with correct application of the DAP method, specific impairments in the…