Facts
The complainant, [B.] , was born in 1969 and suffered from a recurrent depressive disorder. The InvIA of the canton of Aargau granted him, with effect from August 2002, a full disability pension by decision of 5 March 2004. With effect from December 2005, the administration discontinued the benefit because no degree of disability justifying the pension was present anymore.
The Insurance Court of the canton of Aargau dismissed the complaint against the decision on appeal. The complainant filed a complaint in public law matters with the request that the contested court decision and the decision on appeal be reversed and the decision of 5 March 2004 be reinstated.
Considerations
The Federal Court based its decision on the facts established by the lower court. It can only correct or supplement the lower court's findings of fact if they are obviously incorrect or based on a violation of the law within the meaning of Art. 95 FSCA.
The question of whether the normative guidelines established by the case law were sufficiently taken into account in an expert opinion is a freely reviewable legal question. The Federal Court found that the lower court should have supplemented the facts of its own motion before deciding on the claim.
The administrative expert opinion alone does not provide a sufficient basis, under the circumstances described, to conclusively assess the question of whether there has been a claim-relevant change in the state of health. Consequently,…