Facts
[K.], born in 1954, suffered an injury to his right shoulder in an accident on December 2, 1998. Helsana Insurance AG (Helsana), with whom he was compulsorily insured against the consequences of accidents through his employer, provided the statutory benefits.
On April 1, 2002, [K.] took up a new job, where he was compulsorily insured against accidents with the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA) through his new employer. From August 12, 2002, [K.] was again fully incapacitated for work due to pain in his right shoulder. Helsana again provided medical treatment and paid daily allowances. During the receipt of these benefits, [K.] suffered a further accident on October 22, 2002, which led to paraplegia and complete incapacity for work.
SUVA denied its obligation to provide benefits for the accident of October 22, 2002 and stated that, pursuant to Art. 77 AFIA in conjunction with Art. 100 para. 1 OAFIA, Helsana was obliged to provide benefits. Helsana, on the other hand, argued that SUVA had to provide the benefits for the relapse and the accident of October 22, 2002 based on Art. 100 para. 2 OAFIA.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that Art. 100 para. 1 OAFIA regulates the aftermath of the previous employment relationship before the commencement of a new insured activity. The relapse is not a new accident within the meaning of this provision, but merely a connection to a previous accident event.
Since the…