Rejection of the Claim for an Automatic Door Opener as an Aid of the Disability Insurance

Facts

The case concerns the claim of [S.], an insured person who has been tetraplegic since a vascular embolism in May 2008, for the assumption of the costs of an automatic door opener at the house entrance as an aid of the Disability Insurance (IV). The IV office of the Canton of St. Gallen had rejected the claim for the door opener, whereupon [S.] filed a complaint. The Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen partially upheld the complaint and granted [S.] the claim for the door opener. The IV office then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court overturns the cantonal decision and holds that [S.] has no claim to the automatic door opener as an aid of the Disability Insurance. The reasoning is as follows:

According to the case law, the provision of aids is subject to the general requirements of suitability, necessity and integration effectiveness. The claim for aids is conclusively regulated in the Federal Act on Disability Insurance (IVG) and the associated Ordinance (HVI). The list of aid categories contained in the Annex to the HVI is conclusive in the sense that it lists the aids in question.

The door opener cannot be subsumed either under the "environmental control devices" according to Section 15.05 of the HVI…