Dismissal of the appeal against the time limitation of a disability pension

Facts

The appellant, [B.] , a 1960-born cleaning staff member, fell on 11 September 2008 and suffered a distal multifragmentary fracture of the right radius. She applied for benefits from the disability insurance on 6 July 2009. The disability insurance office of the canton of Zurich granted her a time-limited full disability pension for the period from 1 January to 31 July 2010. The Social Insurance Court of the canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal against the time limitation of the pension decision.

The appellant lodges an appeal in public law matters and requests that the matter be remanded to the disability insurance office for further clarification, possibly granting her a corresponding pension in the event of a 100% degree of disability.

Considerations

The Federal Court applies the law ex officio and only examines the legal violations alleged in its proceedings. It bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court. The lower court has correctly stated the statutory provisions and the principles developed by the case law regarding the entitlement to a disability pension and the assessment of the degree of disability for gainfully employed insured persons.

The lower court, based on the multidisciplinary expert opinion of [Z.] of 16 December 2010, established that the appellant had recovered sufficiently after the accident of 11 September 2008 and the thyroidectomy performed in February 2010, so that by the end of April 2010, she was capable of working 100% in an activity adapted to her disability of the right dominant arm. The factual findings of the cantonal court are generally binding in the last instance proceedings.

The insured person claims that her right to participate was violated during the expert examination because the expert opinion does not meet the requirements of a MEDAS expert examination. However, the expert opinion was prepared before the issuance of BGE 137 V 210, and the insured person was provided with a copy of the expert examination assignment with a questionnaire by the commissioning accident insurance. The lower court was therefore entitled to…