Facts
{ "title": \"No entry on late objection due to lack of formal requirements in accident insurance", \"facts": \"The appellant (born 1971) has been employed as a machinist at [B. GmbH] since January 1997 and is insured against occupational and non-occupational accidents with the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (Suva). On 15 March 2008, he suffered an accident while snowboarding, injuring his left elbow. With a damage report dated 30 November 2020, he claimed that the complaints were related to this event. Suva denied liability in a ruling dated 30 September 2021, as there was no certain CO probable causal link. The appellant filed an objection against this ruling on 3 November 2021, which he supplemented on 9 December 2021. Suva did not enter into the objection with an objection decision dated 2 February 2022 due to lateness, as the 30-day period had already begun on 2 October 2021 (delivery of the ruling by registered mail) and the objection had only been submitted on 3 November 2021. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the appeal against this with a judgment dated 29 September 2022. The appellant alleges before the Federal Supreme Court a violation of formal and material rights, in particular the lack of a signature on the objection decision and the incorrect calculation of the deadline.
", \"reasoning": \"1. Scope of review and devolutive effect The Federal Supreme Court reviews the appeal under Art. 105 para. 1 and 2 FSCA, as this is a social insurance procedure. The subject of the appeal is not the Suva objection decision, but the cantonal judgment (Art. 80 para. 1 FSCA). The request for annulment of the objection decision is therefore to be interpreted as a request for annulment of the lower-instance judgment (devolutive effect).
2. Signature requirement for the objection decision The appellant alleges the lack of a signature on the objection decision of 2 February 2022 and argues that this is required as a validity condition. The Federal Supreme Court refers to its consistent case law, according to which there is no general signature requirement for social insurance rulings. This does not follow from the principle of written form nor from special legislation such as the GSSLA CO the GSSLO. The lower court correctly found that the objection decision is valid even without a signature. Even if a signature requirement existed, there would be no serious, incurable defect justifying the nullity of the decision. The author of the decision is clearly identifiable, and there are no doubts as to its authenticity CO identity.
3. Compliance with the objection deadline The appellant claims that the objection period was not correctly calculated, as the ruling of 30 September 2021 was delivered by registered mail on Saturday, 2 October 2021, and he only became aware of its contents on Monday, 4 October 2021. The Federal Supreme Court notes that delivery by registered mail is deemed to trigger the deadline as soon as the item enters the recipient’s sphere of control (post box). Actual knowledge is irrelevant. The 30-day objection period therefore began on 3 October 2021 and ended on 1 November 2021. The objection submitted on 3 November 2021 was thus late. The granting of an extension by Suva does not change the lateness, as statutory deadlines are not extendable (Art. 40 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 52 para. 1 GSSLA).
4. Conclusion The challenged judgment of the Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau does not violate federal law. It is neither arbitrary nor does it contravene constitutional rights such as good faith (Art. 9 Cst.), the right to a fair trial (Art. 29 Cst., Art. 6 ECHR) CO equality of arms. The appeal is therefore unfounded.
Final decision: The appeal is dismissed. The court costs of CHF 500.- are imposed on the appellant.
", \"ref_judgments": [ \"BGE 145 V 57", \"BGE 142 V 152", \"SVR 2016 UV No. 33 p. 108", \"8C_259/2015", \"8C_217/2021", \"8C_657/2019", \"8C_518/2017", \"8C_434/2019", \"8C_434/2017", \"9C_597/2014", \"BGE 112 V 87", \"BGE 105 V 248", \"BGE 136 II 539", \"BGE 134 II 142", \"BGE 131 V 483", \"BGE 147 IV 93", \"BGE 145 IV 197", \"BGE 145 III 436", \"BGE 144 IV 197", \"BGE 139 II 243", \"BGE 138 II 501", \"BGE 137 I 273", \"6B_684/2021", \"8C_242/2020", \"2C_315/2019", \"8C_1065/2009",…