Facts

Rejection of the Complaint Against the Refusal of a Disability Pension Parties: - **Appellant:** [A.] , represented by attorney Peter F. Siegen - **Respondent:** IV Office of the Canton of Aargau Facts: - [A.] applied for a disability pension due to chronic back pain and a depressive episode. - The IV Office of the Canton of Aargau rejected the application, stating that the established occupation as a harvester was fully reasonable. - After further clarifications and expert opinions, the insurance court of the Canton of Aargau confirmed the rejection. - [A.] filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court. Main Issue: - Whether a pension-relevant health impairment exists that justifies a disability pension. Reasoning: The Federal Supreme Court first examined whether the cantonal court had rightly denied a pension-relevant health impairment. The lower court had argued that the depressive symptoms should be considered a concomitant of the pain disorder and not as an independent disease. The appellant disputed this and argued that the depression had become independent and caused relevant work incapacity. The Federal Supreme Court found that the medical expert opinions had diagnosed a chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (ICD-10 F45.41). The depressive episode was classified as a concomitant of the pain disorder, as it had developed only in the course of pain intensification and was maintained by the persistent pain disorder. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the cantonal court's assessment that the depressive episode did not constitute an independent, self-sustaining mental impairment. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court examined whether the pain disorder itself was pension-relevant. According to the new case law of the Federal Supreme Court (BGE 141 V 281), functional impairments and their effects on work capacity must be precisely justified in the case of somatoform disorders. The Federal Supreme Court found that the insured, despite her pain, led a relatively active life and did not suffer from severe functional limitations. Moreover, the insured had not received adequate psychiatric treatment, which made it difficult to predict the treatability of the depressive episode. Finally, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that neither the pain disorder nor the depressive episode caused pension-relevant…