Facts

[X.] , born in 1965, is a self-employed lawyer and is mandatorily insured with CONCORDIA Swiss Health and Accident Insurance AG (Concordia) under the Federal Health Insurance Act (HIA). On 30 October 1979, he suffered a sensorimotor incomplete tetraplegia below C4, motorically complete below C6, as a result of an accident at school. In an out-of-court agreement dated 15 April/26 May 1999, the parties agreed that the school district would pay Concordia an amount of CHF 100,000. It was noted that the weekly need for basic care, mobilization and supervision was 24.5 hours. On 28 April 2005, [X.] informed Concordia that his wife [K.] had been a qualified nurse since 1988 and had been a recognized service provider by santésuisse since 9 February 2005. The expert opinion [A.] had determined a daily care requirement of 6.66 hours. Based on the agreement of 15 April/26 May 1999, he therefore still had a claim against the mandatory health insurance for care services in the amount of 3.166 hours per day, retroactively from April 2000. On 22 August 2005, Concordia ruled that, taking into account the waiver of benefits under the agreement of 15 April/26 May 1999, [X.] still had a claim for reimbursement of an insured care requirement of 0.3 hours per day. Upon objection, Concordia set the insured care requirement at 0.38 hours. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus partially upheld [X.] 's appeal and set the "proven daily care requirement" at 2.82 hours. The Federal Supreme Court partially upheld Concordia's appeal, set aside the decision of the Administrative Court and remanded the case for a new decision in accordance with the considerations. Subsequently, the Administrative Court obtained the expert opinion [Y.] of 27 October 2009 and partially upheld [X.] 's appeal by setting the proven daily care requirement from 9 February 2005 at 2.82 hours.

Considerations

1. The Federal Supreme Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court and can only correct or supplement the lower court's findings of fact if they are manifestly incorrect or based on a violation of the law. 2. The subject matter of the dispute is the claim for reimbursement of care expenses by the mandatory health insurance from 9 February 2005 to 24 October 2005. The norms applicable until 31 December 2005 are decisive. 3. The mandatory health insurance covers the costs of examinations, treatments and nursing measures provided on an outpatient basis during home visits, inpatient, semi-inpatient or in a nursing home by persons who provide services on the order or on behalf of a physician (Art. 25 para. 2 lit. a no. 3 HIA). The services of home nursing care, outpatient or in a nursing home are further specified in Art. 7 HIBO. 4. The Federal Supreme Court does not consider it arbitrary for the lower court to have attributed greater probative value to the expert opinion [Y.] than to the assessment [Z.] . The expert opinion [Y.] adheres to the RAI-HC needs assessment instrument,…