Facts
This judgment addresses the question of whether tendon sprains are considered similar to accidents within the meaning of Art. 9 para. 2 of the Ordinance on Accident Insurance (UVV) and are thus covered by compulsory accident insurance.
The Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (SUVA) had rejected the benefits for a tendon sprain of the opposing party, as tendon sprains are not listed in the exhaustive list of accident-like bodily injuries in Art. 9 para. 2 UVV. The cantonal court had granted the insured's appeal.
The Federal Court overturned the lower court's judgment and confirmed SUVA's rejection of the benefits.
Considerations
The Federal Court states that pursuant to Art. 6 para. 2 of the Federal Act on Accident Insurance (UVG), the Federal Council is authorized to include bodily injuries similar to the consequences of an accident in the insurance. In implementation of this delegation, the Federal Council has established an exhaustive list of accident-like bodily injuries in Art. 9 para. 2 UVV.
While the injuries listed in this list, such as tendon ruptures, may also be considered accident-like if they are partly based on disease or degenerative phenomena, in each case there must be a sudden, damaging and unintended event that causes the injury.
The list in Art. 9 para. 2 UVV is exhaustive, so that an extension of the list by analogies is not permissible. Since tendon sprains are not included in the list, they do not fall under the concept of accident-like bodily injuries.
The Federal Court considers the exclusion of tendon sprains from the list of accident-like bodily injuries to be lawful and constitutional. The Federal Council was allowed to make this…