Contribution to costs for the installation of a vertical lift as an aid to InvIA

Facts

The complainant, [H.] , was involved in a traffic accident in 2000 and suffered a brainstem injury in 2001, resulting in right-sided hemiplegia and complete dependence on a wheelchair. In 2002, he had a wheelchair-accessible house built on his property in [X.] and had a vertical lift installed to overcome the height between the ground floor and the upper floor.

The InvIA office of the canton of Zurich granted the complainant a contribution to costs of CHF 25,900 for the installation of the vertical lift, assuming a substitution option with a stairlift with suspension straps (model RL-50). However, the complainant requested the assumption of the actual basic costs of the vertical lift, which amounted to CHF 53,172.

The Social Insurance Court of the canton of Zurich dismissed the complainant's appeal, and the FSCA did not consider the administrative appeal because the advance payment of costs had been made too late.

The complainant filed a request for revision, which was approved by the FSCA. The FSCA set aside its decision not to consider the appeal and remanded the case to the administration to decide anew on the claim for a contribution to costs for an aid under InvIAO No. 13.05* after conducting investigations.

Considerations

1. Legal basis

The FSCA applied the FSCA, as the judgment whose revision was requested was rendered after January 1, 2007. Revision of a FSCA judgment may be requested if the court has failed to consider significant facts present in the records due to an oversight.

2. Grounds for revision

The FSCA found that it had incorrectly perceived available, essential passages in the judgment of January 19, 2007. In particular, it had misinterpreted the passage in the lower court's decision of October 31, 2006, and had not considered the complainant's notification of December 21, 2006.

3. Service of the advance payment order

The FSCA concluded that the service of the advance payment order of November 24, 2006, had not been properly effected, as the complainant's children's mother had not been explicitly authorized to receive the registered mail addressed to him. The time limit for paying…