Facts
[W.], born in 1958, is insured against accidents with AXA Insurance AG. On February 1, 2001, she reported a snowboard accident to the accident insurer. By decree dated April 7, 2003, the accident insurer determined a 30% residual earning capacity. Since the disability insurance had awarded [W.] a disability pension effective August 1, 2000, no complementary pension from the accident insurer was paid due to over-insurance. However, AXA assured the insured of the assumption of further medical treatments.
By decree dated July 23, 2012, AXA discontinued the assumption of treatment with physiotherapy, osteopathy, and Carbostesin as of the end of July 2012. Both the health insurer Helsana Versicherungen AG and [W.] herself filed an objection against this. AXA rejected the objections by objection decision dated December 3, 2012.
Both Helsana Versicherungen AG and [W.] then filed a complaint. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau partially upheld the complaints, set aside the objection decision of December 3, 2012, and referred the matter back to AXA for further clarification and the subsequent issuance of a new decree.
By appeal in public law matters, AXA requested that paragraphs 1 and 3 of the lower court's decision be set aside and the objection decision of December 3, 2012 be confirmed.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismisses the appeal, insofar as it has entered into it.
According to the findings of the cantonal court, AXA had granted the insured a pension claim by decree of April 7, 2003, but had fully reduced the benefits based on Art. 20 para. 2 AOIA due to exceeding the insured earnings. It was only due to the coordination with the benefits of the disability insurance that no complementary pension from the accident insurer was paid or that it was reduced to zero Swiss francs.
The Federal Court notes that the AOIA pension claim in such a constellation - unlike, for example, in the case of a full earning capacity determined…