Facts
A., born in 1965, has suffered from a left-sided spastic tetraparesis with contractures in the left arm and left hip joint since birth. She has been receiving a full disability pension and helplessness compensation since October 1983. In July 2013, A. applied to the IV office of the Canton of St. Gallen for the coverage of the costs of an electronic door opener at the entrance of her multi-family house. The IV office rejected the application, whereupon A. filed a complaint. The cantonal insurance court upheld the complaint and granted A. the entitlement to the door opener. The IV office then filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision of the cantonal court and confirmed the ruling of the IV office. It stated that the entitlement to the door opener does not fall under Section 14.04 of the Annex to the Ordinance on the Provision of Aids by the Disability Insurance (HVI), which only covers structural changes in the dwelling. Measures on the front door of a multi-family house generally fall within the scope of Section 13.05* of the HVI Annex, for which, however, the requirements of effectiveness for vocational integration are not met.
The Federal Supreme Court saw no reasons that would justify a change in its previous case law. It is not permissible to derive the entitlement to the door opener directly from the purpose of the law, as this would replace the discretion granted to the Federal Council or the Department. As long as the non-inclusion of the door opener in the list of…