Facts
K., born in 1967, was compulsorily insured against the consequences of accidents with Helsana Accident Insurance AG. On December 17, 2010, she suffered a rear-end collision. In a letter dated November 16, 2011, Helsana informed K. that it would obtain an expert opinion from three specialist physicians. K. claimed that the proposed experts lacked the necessary independence. Helsana maintained the assessment by the three physicians in an interim decision dated November 29, 2011.
K. filed a complaint against this interim decision. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the complaint. K. then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that in the field of accident insurance, an assessment in case of disagreement must also be ordered by means of an interim decision that can be challenged before the cantonal insurance court (or the Federal Administrative Court). The insured person has prior rights of participation, so that they can express their views on the expert questions.
Regarding the appealability to the Federal Supreme Court, the Court decided that cantonal decisions or those of the Federal Administrative Court on complaints against…