Facts
The Disability Insurance Office of the Canton of Solothurn had planned a medical examination by Dr. med. [L.] , a specialist FMH for rheumatic diseases. The insured person, [G.] , did not agree with the proposed expert and complained about the lack of professional competence and independence of Dr. med. [L.] . The Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn requested the Disability Insurance Office to disclose information about the number of expert opinions and medical reports that Dr. med. [L.] had received in 2006, as well as the fee paid for this purpose.
The Disability Insurance Office appealed against this ruling and requested that the ruling be revoked and that it be established that no bias could be assumed due to the number of orders awarded to an expert and the resulting fee volume.
Considerations
The Federal Court dealt with the question of whether the contested ruling is an interim decision that can be appealed under the conditions of Art. 93 FSCA. It came to the conclusion that the ruling is an interim decision that is not independently appealable, but is appealable under the conditions of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. b FSCA, as an approval of the appeal would prejudice a final interim decision on a question regarding which a separate appeal to the Federal Court would be possible in any case.
The Federal Court further established that the insured person had rejected Dr. med. [L.] due to lack of professional competence with their appeal of 22 February 2006, which cannot be the subject of a request for rejection. The insured person also argued that the number of expert opinions and medical reports commissioned by the Disability Insurance Office from Dr. med. [L.] , as well as the resulting fee volume, were so high that the expert's independence within the meaning of Art. 44 GSSLA could…