Facts
[K.] was employed as a production worker at the company X. AG from April 1, 1993 and was insured with the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA). From May 22, 2006, he ceased work due to rhinitis, eye itching and frequent sneezing, which was recognized by SUVA as an occupational disease. By decision of September 27, 2006, SUVA declared the insured person as unsuitable for activities with exposure to flours. As a result, the insurer granted transitional daily allowance from October 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007. Since June 1, 2007, [K.] has been working as a driver in a laundry.
On November 7, 2007, SUVA awarded the insured person transitional compensation for the period from February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008. By letter dated July 7, 2009, it informed him that it had denied the claim for a second installment of the transitional compensation for the period from February 1, 2008 to January 31, 2009, as there was no significant wage loss of 10%. The insured person raised objections against this.
Considerations
The Federal Court has decided that the entitlement to transitional compensation requires a wage loss of at least 10%. This results from the purpose of the transitional compensation, which is to support the insured person in their professional reorientation. A materiality threshold of 5% or less would not be appropriate.
The Federal Court has drawn an analogy to the…