Facts
The complainant, [M.] , was involved in a traffic accident in 2004 and subsequently received a full pension from the InvIA office of the Canton of Zurich. After an observation and further investigations, the InvIA office revoked the pension as of December 31, 2009. The complainant appealed this decision to the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal. The complainant then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complainant was born in 1949 and was involved in a traffic accident on ... . By decision of November 3, 2006, the InvIA office of the Canton of Zurich granted her a full pension as of October 1, 2004. After an observation of [M.] from March 4 to 24 and May 19 to 20, 2006, by AXA, the InvIA office had the insured person examined internally, rheumatologically, neurologically, and psychiatrically.
The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the complainant's appeal by decision of September 28, 2011. [M.] is filing an appeal in public law matters with the request that the decision of September 28, 2011, be revoked and that she be granted a full pension again.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court has examined the requirements for revising the full pension based on Art. 17 para. 1 GSSLA. The lower court affirmed the requirements for revising the full pension, reasoning that the original assessment of the ability to work had proven to be unrealistic.
However, the Federal Supreme Court found that the lower court did not properly examine the requirements for revising the full pension. The lower court did not explain why the insured person's earning capacity should have improved despite essentially unchanged findings. The medical report of the Medical Clarification Center [X.] of November 10, 2008, also…