Facts
The complainant suffered from somatic complaints that were allegedly caused by an accident on February 22, 1992. The lower court denied the question of whether the complainant still suffered from insurance-entitling somatic complaints after July 31, 1995, that could be attributed to the accident. The complainant submitted expert opinions from Dr. med. H. and Dr. med. M., which described the expert opinion of Dr. med. K. from June 28, 1995, as unreliable.
The parties are the complainant, the "Winterthur" Swiss Insurance Company and the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich. The proceedings were decided on June 14, 1999.
Considerations
Federal law does not prescribe how individual pieces of evidence are to be assessed. The principle of free assessment of evidence applies to the entire administrative and administrative court appeal procedure. This means that the social insurance judge must objectively examine all evidence and decide whether the available documents permit a reliable assessment of the disputed legal claim.
Case law has established guidelines for the assessment of evidence. Thus, the judge does not deviate from the medical expert's assessment without compelling reasons. A reason to deviate may exist if the court expertise is contradictory or if a supreme expert opinion obtained by the court convincingly leads to other conclusions.
Party expert opinions can have the same rank as an expert opinion obtained by the court or by an…