Facts
V., born in 1964, was insured against the consequences of occupational accidents with Gerling Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG (hereinafter: Gerling) as a newspaper distributor for the company X. AG. On March 6, 2007, she injured her ankle while delivering newspapers. Gerling denied any obligation to provide benefits in its decision of June 28, 2007 and its objection decision of August 21, 2007, as the insured person had not suffered an accident or an accident-like bodily injury.
ÖKK Kranken- und Unfallversicherungen AG (hereinafter: ÖKK), as V.'s health insurer, filed a complaint with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus on September 11, 2007. The cantonal court affirmed the existence of an external factor and thus an accident-like bodily injury in its decision of October 8, 2008, upheld the health insurer's complaint, and obliged Gerling to provide the statutory benefits for the consequences of the event of March 6, 2007.
In its complaint, HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherungs AG as the legal successor of Gerling requests that the rejection of benefits be confirmed by setting aside the cantonal court's decision. It primarily argues that, according to the files, the insured person did not suffer a ligament injury.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examines whether new facts and evidence are admissible in the proceedings for the granting or denial of cash benefits from the accident insurance. It concludes that new facts and evidence may only be presented to the extent that the decision of the lower instance gives rise to this.
With regard to the appellant's allegation that the lower instance wrongly assumed a ligament injury based on the files, this constitutes a new…