Facts
The facts are as follows: - Mr. and Mrs. [K.] are judicially separated. The civil court has ordered Mr. [K.] to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of CHF 1,300 to his wife Mrs. [K.], taking into account the fact that the latter, due to her state of health, could not engage in gainful employment at 50% as before the separation. - On the advice of the cantonal court, Mr. [K.] reported his wife for the benefit of an IV pension on 18 October 1991. The disability insurance then conducted investigations and ultimately rejected the pension application in a decision of 5 August 1992. - Mr. [K.] then requested access to the file in order to possibly file an appeal, but this request was denied. He then appealed against this refusal. - The cantonal appeals commission ultimately rejected Mr. K.'s appeal, considering that the right of access to the file had to give way to the protection of Mrs. K.'s privacy.Considerations
The Federal Insurance Court considers that: - In accordance with Art. 66 para. 2 OASIO, only the insured person capable of discernment can lift the professional secrecy of the doctors, and not a third party such as the husband. The administration could therefore not base itself on the medical reports produced without the express consent of Mrs. K. - These medical reports must be excluded from the evidence, as they were obtained illegally. The cantonal commission should have asked Mrs. K.…