Facts
A., born in 1963, an electrical mechanic, was the victim of an accident on April 1, 2001 while riding a motorcycle. He suffered multiple injuries, including amputation of the left leg at mid-thigh and loss of use of the left arm. The Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (CNA) granted him a disability pension and compensation for impairment of physical integrity. It covered the fitting of a mechanical CAT-CAM leg prosthesis on the left side.
In 2011, A. requested coverage for a CAT-CAM prosthesis with a C-Leg robotic knee, estimated at 41,049 francs. After an evaluation by Clinic F., the CNA refused this request, considering that the robotic prosthesis would not influence the insured's degree of disability.
A. appealed against this decision. The Cantonal Court of the Canton of Fribourg upheld the appeal and recognized the insured's right to have the C-Leg prosthesis covered by the CNA.
The CNA then filed a public law appeal against this judgment.
Considerations
According to case law, auxiliary means such as prostheses must meet the criteria of simplicity and adequacy, i.e. be suitable for achieving the purpose set by law and have a reasonable ratio between cost and utility.
Although the C-Leg prosthesis is more expensive than the mechanical prosthesis, it is necessary and appropriate in A.'s case due to his multiple deficiencies (leg amputation, loss of use of the arm) and repeated falls with the…