Facts
Parties and procedural history: The appellant (born 1961) received a quarter disability pension from May 2016 and a full disability pension from September 2016 due to psychological reasons. In September 2020, she applied for an assistance allowance, which was denied by the IV office of the Canton of Zurich in a ruling dated 17 February 2021. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal with a judgment dated 28 February 2022. The appellant has filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the contested judgment and the granting of the assistance allowance.
Facts of the case: The appellant suffers from psychological impairments and claims an assistance allowance for moderate or mild helplessness. The dispute concerns whether she regularly requires third-party assistance in the daily activities of personal hygiene and mobility/establishing contact and whether she is permanently in need of practical life support. The IV office based its denial on an assessment report dated 3 December 2020, which did not establish regular third-party assistance or practical life support to the required extent. The appellant criticises, in particular, incomplete fact-finding, the failure to consider current medical reports, and the lack of a statement from the Regional Medical Service (RAD).
Considerations
Legal basis and standard of review: The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the lower court violated federal law, in particular the provisions on assistance allowance (Art. 9 GSSLA, Art. 42 InvIA, Art. 35 et seq. InvIO). It takes as its basis the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA) and only corrects them in the case of obvious errors (Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA). The interpretation of the concept of helplessness is a question of law, while the findings on daily activities are questions of fact. An assessment report must meet certain requirements to have probative value (e.g., plausibility, level of detail, consideration of medical diagnoses and information from persons providing assistance).
Assessment of the assessment and factual findings: The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the assessment report dated 3 December 2020 meets the requirements for probative value. The lower court was entitled to rely on it, as there were no obvious misjudgements. The appellant was unable to demonstrate any specific ambiguities or new impairments that would have required additional assessment. The failure to obtain a RAD report or more recent medical reports does not constitute a procedural error, as the appellant did not substantiate any deterioration in her state of…