Facts
V., born in 1941, employed as a foreman mason at the construction company K. AG since January 1, 1976 and thus insured against accidents and occupational diseases with the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA), sought treatment from his general practitioner on December 27, 1994 due to severe pain in the area of his right elbow. SUVA rejected its obligation to provide benefits, whereupon Artisana as V.'s daily sickness allowance insurer filed an objection. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern upheld the complaint and obliged SUVA to provide V. with the statutory benefits for the epicondylitis that occurred in December 1994.
SUVA filed an administrative court appeal with the request to set aside the decision of the cantonal administrative court. It argued that according to the current state of medical knowledge, epicondylitis is not predominantly caused by occupational activity and can therefore hardly ever be recognized as an occupational disease under Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA.
Considerations
The Federal Court states that the recognition of an occupational disease under Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA is primarily a question of proof in the individual case. However, if, based on medical research results, there is an empirical value indicating that an occupational genesis of a certain condition cannot be proven by its nature, this excludes the proof of qualified causality within the meaning of Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA in the individual case.
The Federal Court finds that the arguments put forward by SUVA based on the latest medical findings on the genesis of…