Facts

Parties: Appellant: IV Office of the Canton of Zurich; Respondent: [A.] (represented by attorney Aurelia Jenny).

Facts:

  • The 1965-born [A.] applied for benefits from the disability insurance in July 2010.
  • The IV Office of the Canton of Zurich conducted several expert assessments, including a bidisciplinary assessment at the Academy of Swiss Insurance (asim) and a polydisciplinary assessment at the Swiss Medical Assessment- and Business-Center (SMAB).
  • The IV Office rejected the application for benefits with a decision dated May 29, 2015, which was partially upheld by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich.
  • The IV Office ordered a renewed medical assessment, which was revoked by the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich.
  • The IV Office filed an appeal against the decision of the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dated November 13, 2018.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines its jurisdiction and the conditions for entering into proceedings ex officio and with free cognition (Art. 29 para. 1 FSCA; BGE 139 V 42 E. 1 p. 44 with references). The appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is admissible against final decisions and certain partial decisions (Art. 90 and 91 FSCA). The appeal is only admissible against independently opened preliminary and interim decisions if they concern jurisdiction or recusal, can cause irreparable harm, or the admission of the appeal would immediately result in a final decision (Art. 92 and 93 FSCA).

The cantonal court evaluated the medical file and concluded that the facts had been sufficiently clarified. The previous instance correctly stated that the insurer must clarify the legally relevant facts according to the general rules of social insurance law (Art. 43 para. 1 GSSLA). The conduct of the proceedings lies with the insurer, whose discretion regarding the necessity, scope, and appropriateness of medical investigations is considerable.

The cantonal court essentially considered that the doctors of the [C.] clinic had taken a comprehensible position on the earlier diagnoses in their expert report dated December 22, 2016, and had taken into account the information from the day center of the [D.] hospital. The experts of the…