Facts
[C.], born in 1949, worked as a cleaning employee for a total of six different employers. On January 26, 2009, she suffered a fall on her way from the workplace at the [H.] estate, where she worked 20 hours per week, to her workplace at Dr. med. [S.], where she worked 3 hours per week, and sustained an intra-articular distal radius fracture of her right hand. Based on the employment relationship with the [H.] estate, [C.] was insured against the consequences of occupational and non-occupational accidents with the Basler Versicherungs-Gesellschaft, and due to the employment relationship with Dr. med. [S.], she was insured against the consequences of occupational accidents with the Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft AG.
The Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft AG rejected the provision of benefits from the mandatory accident insurance for the accident event of January 26, 2009 with a ruling dated December 2, 2009 and a decision on objection dated March 8, 2010, as it was a non-occupational accident and they were not responsible.
Considerations
The Federal Court states that according to the wording of Art. 7 para. 2 AOIA, the qualification of the accident as an occupational or non-occupational accident depends on whether the appellant works at least 8 hours per week or not. Since [C.] reached the required 8 hours per week in one of her employment relationships (with the [H.] estate), she is insured against non-occupational accidents and the requirement of Art. 7 para. 2 AOIA is not met. Consequently, the accident of January 26, 2009 is to be qualified as a non-occupational accident, regardless of the fact that [C.] worked only 3 hours per week for another employer (Dr. med. [S.]).
The Federal Court further states that this…