Facts
The appellant, born in 1966, registered with the Disability Insurance (IV office of the Canton of Solothurn) for benefits in August 2019. Following medical assessments, in particular a multidisciplinary expert report by Drs. med. [B.] (specialist in general internal medicine and rheumatology) and [C.] (specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy) dated 26 March 2021 (with comments dated 14 February 2022), as well as a preliminary ruling procedure, the IV office of the Canton of Solothurn determined a degree of disability of 31 % from March 2020 and 39 % from January 2024. With a ruling dated 4 March 2024, it rejected the claim for a disability pension as well as for vocational integration measures.
The appellant filed an appeal against this with the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which dismissed the appeal in its judgment of 21 February 2025, to the extent that it admitted the appeal. The appellant then filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court and requested either the quashing of the cantonal judgment and the IV office’s ruling and the referral of the matter back for further assessments and a new decision, or alternatively the award of a quarter pension from 1 March 2020 (subsequently from 1 January 2024) and the referral of the matter back for examination of vocational measures.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal in public law matters as a reformatory legal remedy (Art. 107 para. 2 FSCA). A purely quashing request is admissible if the lower court has insufficiently clarified the facts or has not admitted an appeal. In the present case, the cantonal court assessed the claim for a disability pension on the merits, while it did not admit the appeal regarding the claim for vocational integration measures. The quashing requests are therefore admissible, and the Federal Supreme Court admits the appeal.
The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA) and only examines the alleged legal defects (Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA). It bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA) and may only correct or supplement these if they are obviously incorrect or arbitrary (Art. 97 para. 1 and Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA).
Procedural objection: The appellant complains that the cantonal court should have set a deadline for her to improve the grounds of appeal before not admitting the appeal regarding vocational integration measures. The Federal Supreme Court notes that the grounds of appeal in the appellant’s appeal brief of 18 April 2024 were insufficient. No clear request for vocational integration measures was made, and the grounds were undifferentiated. The cantonal court therefore correctly assumed that the grounds of appeal were insufficient and did not set a deadline for improvement. The non-admission of the appeal regarding this claim is in conformity with federal law, and the appeal is therefore unfounded in this respect.
Substantive objection: The appellant disputes the evidentiary value of the expert report by Drs. med. [B.] and [C.] as well as the lower court’s determination of the degree of disability. The Federal Supreme Court confirms the…