Facts
The complainant, [S.] , born 1958, was involved in a traffic accident on 13 January 1998 and applied for benefits from the disability insurance for the first time in November 1998. The InvIO Glarus granted him a half disability pension with an invalidity degree of 64%. After a stroke in April 2004, the InvIO increased the entitlement to a full disability pension. In February 2007, the InvIO conducted a revision procedure and discontinued the benefits. The complainant requested the InvIO to reassess the pension entitlement after an acute heart attack in March 2009, which the InvIO rejected.
The Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus dismissed the complaint against the decision not to consider the application. The complainant is filing a complaint in public law matters and is requesting the reversal of the cantonal decision and the remittal of the case for material examination of the benefit application.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court. The complaint in public law matters can be filed due to legal violations pursuant to Art. 95 et seq. FSCA. The Federal Supreme Court can only correct or supplement the lower court's establishment of the facts ex officio if it is obviously incorrect or based on a legal violation within the meaning of Art. 95 FSCA.
The matter in dispute and to be examined is the lower court's approval of the administration's decision not to consider the benefit application due to a lack of credible evidence of a claim-relevant change since the last material examination and rejection of benefits. The InvIO rejected the new application based on the report by Dr. med. [H.] of 3 June 2009 and the attached hospital reports, as no persistent deterioration of the state of health with an impact on the ability to work since July 2008 had been credibly demonstrated.
The Federal Supreme Court has included the hospital reports mentioned in the statement by Dr. med. [H.] in the assessment of…