Facts
V., born in 1963, was insured against the consequences of accidents as a welder at A. AG with the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA). On October 18, 2002 and September 3, 2003, he suffered injuries in work-related accidents, for which SUVA acknowledged its obligation to provide benefits and paid the statutory benefits. However, the persistent complaints claimed beyond October 31, 2006 were no longer recognized by SUVA as being caused by the accidents, and the benefits were discontinued.
V. filed a complaint against SUVA's decision on the objection, and the cantonal court dismissed his complaint. V. appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that SUVA be obligated to continue providing benefits.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the lower court had violated the principle of equality of arms under Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR in its assessment of the evidence by relying on the reports of the insurance company's internal physicians.
The court stated that it is generally permissible for a court to base its decision on the evidence correctly obtained by the insurance carrier and to refrain from its own evidentiary proceedings. However, the insured person has the right to comment on the matter, to submit relevant evidence, and to participate in the collection of essential evidence.
While the reports of the insurance company's internal physicians do not have the same evidentiary value as a court expert opinion or an expert opinion under Art. 44 ATSG, if there are even minor doubts about the reliability and coherence of these reports, additional clarifications must be made.
In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court did not see a…