Facts
A., born in 1963, was employed by B. SA in a 50% position and was therefore mandatorily insured against the consequences of accidents with Helsana Accident Insurance AG. On November 22, 2021, she bit into a stone that was in a salad bag. She then sought dental treatment, where a composite filling was initially replaced. As this did not achieve the desired success, the extraction of tooth 47 was carried out on December 23, 2021, due to the suspicion of a longitudinal fracture.
Helsana denied its obligation to provide benefits, as it did not see a natural causal link between the accident event and the claimed dental damage. The appeal filed by A. against this was dismissed by the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau.
With an appeal in public law matters, A. requested that the statutory benefits be awarded to her. Alternatively, the case should be remanded to the lower instance for the purpose of obtaining a court expert opinion or to Helsana for the purpose of obtaining an external insurance expert opinion.
Considerations
The Federal Court held that based on the available medical records, it could not be reliably determined whether the accident event of November 22, 2021, was at least a partial cause of the disputed dental damage and whether the affected tooth 47 was already so weakened before the accident event that it would not have withstood normal stress.
Since the…