Assessment of Integrity Damages by In-House Physicians of the SUVA

Facts

This judgment addresses the question of whether the assessment of integrity damages by in-house physicians of the SUVA is subject to the same rules of recusal as expert opinions. The appellant argued that SUVA physicians should generally be required to recuse themselves due to the special duty or dependency relationship.

Considerations

The Federal Court decided that the rules of recusal for experts pursuant to Art. 19 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVG) in conjunction with Art. 58 of the Civil Procedure Code (BZP) and Art. 22/23 of the Judiciary Act (OG) are not applicable to reports and opinions of in-house physicians of the insurance company. These physicians are not experts within the meaning of the law, but rather internal specialists who participate in the preparation of rulings. Instead, the general grounds for recusal under Art. 10 of the…