Recognition of an Occupational Disease in the Event of Aggravation of a Prior Condition

Facts

This decision concerns a dispute between the insurance company "Zürich" and Mr. regarding the recognition of an occupational disease under Art. 9 paras. 1 and 2 of the AIA (AIA). The main issue is whether the aggravation of a prior morbid condition by substances or work listed by the Federal Council pursuant to Art. 9 para. 1 AIA or by the exercise of the professional activity within the meaning of Art. 9 para. 2 AIA (general clause) can be equated to an affection caused by the same factors.

Considerations

The Federal Court has ruled that the case law developed regarding Art. 68 para. 1 of the AAFO is still applicable under the AIA. Thus, the aggravation of a prior morbid condition by substances or work listed by the Federal Council pursuant to Art. 9 para. 1 AIA or by the exercise of the professional activity within the meaning of Art. 9 para. 2 AIA (general clause) is equated to an affection caused by the same factors.

The Court rejected the insurance company's argument that the case law relating to Art. 68 para. 1 AAFO would not be applicable to Art. 9 para. 2 AIA. It considered that there is no valid reason to treat differently the aggravation of a pre-existing illness by…