Facts
The complainant, H., was compulsorily insured with the Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (SUVA) against the consequences of accidents. On 16 December 2004, she was involved in a car accident that resulted in health consequences. The SUVA ordered a rehabilitation stay at the Rehaklinik Bellikon, where the doctors, in addition to treatment, also provided an interdisciplinary opinion. The SUVA discontinued benefits, as it did not consider the accident to be the cause of the health problems. The complainant lodged an appeal and submitted further medical reports, but the SUVA upheld its decision.
The Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed the appeal. The complainant repeated the requests for legal remedies made in the previous instance, and the Federal Court overturned the decision of the Administrative Court.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the opinions of the Rehaklinik Bellikon could be considered as expert opinions of independent experts within the meaning of Art. 44 GSSLA. It came to the conclusion that these opinions cannot be considered as such expert opinions, as they were requested by the SUVA and the Rehaklinik Bellikon cannot be considered independent in relation to the SUVA.
The court further examined whether the right to be heard was otherwise violated. It found that the SUVA did not give the complainant the opportunity to comment on the necessity and reasonableness of the medical examination at the Rehaklinik Bellikon. This constitutes a violation…