Facts
A. worked as a gardener's assistant and was insured against the risk of occupational and non-occupational accidents with the Swiss Union, General Insurance Company (hereinafter: the Swiss Union). On September 18, 1996, A. was the victim of an accident while carrying out backfilling work at the top of a steep slope. Despite the care he received, A. was no longer able to return to work.
By decision of June 3, 1997, the Swiss Union terminated its intervention with effect from September 17, 1997, on the grounds of the absence of a natural and adequate causal link between the predominantly psychological disorders presented by A. and the insured accident. Swica Health Organization (hereinafter: Swica), acting as A.'s health insurer, filed an objection against this decision. The Swiss Union confirmed the terms of this decision in a decision on objection of April 27, 1998.
Swica appealed against this decision to the Insurance Court of the Canton of Vaud, which dismissed the appeal on November 4, 1999. A. then filed an administrative law appeal against this judgment, concluding that Generali Assurances Générales (hereinafter: Generali), the legal successor to the Swiss Union, should be required to provide benefits beyond September 17, 1997 for the consequences of the accident of September 18, 1996.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal first examined A.'s standing to appeal, as he had not himself contested the decision of the accident insurer. According to case law, only those who have participated in the proceedings before the lower authority and whose conclusions have been wholly or partially rejected may file an administrative law appeal. However, if the appellant has been prevented without fault on his part from participating in these proceedings, his standing to appeal must also be recognized.
In the present case, although A. did not participate in the proceedings before the cantonal court, his standing to appeal must be recognized. Indeed, since Swica had validly…