Facts
The case concerns a complainant who filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against a judgment of the Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen. The cantonal court had essentially based its decision on an expert opinion of the Medical Assessment Center (MEDAS) dated June 28, 1993, and decided that the complainant, due to his health impairment, could exercise his former occupation as a car body painter to the extent of 60% and could earn a corresponding income.
The complainant argued that the MEDAS expert opinion was incomplete and that MEDAS lacked the necessary independence due to its close ties to the Disability Insurance. He argued that the MEDAS physicians were subject to the directive authority of the Federal Social Insurance Office (BSV) according to the statutes in force at the time of the examination, which violated the procedural guarantees under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the independence and impartiality of the MEDAS experts required under Article 4 of the Federal Constitution and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR was already guaranteed before the entry into force of the new MEDAS statutes on June 1, 1994. The influence of the BSV was limited to administrative and organizational matters, not to the professional and substantive aspects of the expert activities.
The new statutes institutionally anchored the already existing professional and substantive independence of the examining physicians from instructions. Nor can any influence of the BSV on the expert activities be derived from the old statutes.…