Facts
The IV Office of the Canton of St. Gallen granted claimant A. (born 1960) a full disability pension as of 1 January 2008 by decision dated 7 October 2011. Based on anonymous tips, the IV Office initiated a revision procedure and revoked the disability pension with a decision dated 25 April 2016, effective 1 June 2016. The Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen partially upheld A.’s appeal and granted him a half pension as of 1 June 2016 (decision dated 6 September 2018).
The Federal Supreme Court set aside this decision with judgment 8C_776/2018 dated 9 May 2019 and referred the matter back to the lower court for further clarification and a new decision. Based on an inquiry to the psychiatric expert of the court expert report, the Insurance Court, with a decision dated 11 December 2019, again revoked the decision of 25 April 2016 and reduced A.’s entitlement to a half disability pension as of 1 June 2016. It also imposed the costs of the court expert report, amounting to CHF 13,588.30, on the IV Office.
On 31 December 2019 (mailing date: 13 January 2020), Hospital B. issued an invoice for CHF 1,540 for the supplementation of the court expert report of 12 September 2019 by the psychiatric expert. The Insurance Court granted the parties a hearing on 16 January 2020 and announced on 12 February 2020 that it would decide on the allocation of the costs of the supplementation of the court expert report after the conclusion of the federal court proceedings. After the Federal Supreme Court dismissed A.’s appeal with judgment 8C_105/2020 dated 2 June 2020, the Insurance Court, with a decision dated 16 July 2020, imposed these additional costs on the IV Office in addition to the decision of 11 December 2019.
The IV Office filed an appeal in public law matters seeking the setting aside of the lower court’s decision of 16 July 2020. The Insurance Court requested the dismissal of the appeal, while A. waived a statement.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the lower court violated federal law by imposing, with its decision of 16 July 2020, the subsequently invoiced costs for the supplementation of the court expert report on the IV Office. The IV Office argued, in particular, a violation of the duty to state reasons under Art. 112 para. 1 lit. b FSCA and Art. 29 para. 2 Cst., as the decision lacked sufficient legal basis for reopening the final decision of 11 December 2019.
The lower court stated that, pursuant to Art. 45 GSSLA, the costs of a court expert report could generally be imposed on the IV Office. However, it failed to provide reasons for the legal basis on which the correction of the final decision was made. The reference to the cantonal procedural regulations (Art. 18 of the Regulations on Organisation and Procedure of the Insurance Court) related only to the jurisdiction of the single judge and not to the admissibility of reopening a final decision. The detailed statement of the lower court in the federal court proceedings could not substitute the missing reasoning. The decision of 16 July 2020 therefore did not meet the requirements of Art. 112 para. 1 lit. b FSCA and constituted a violation of the duty to state reasons.
The lower court argued that its decision of 11 December 2019 had become final following the Federal Supreme Court’s non-admission judgment of 2 June 2020 (8C_105/2020). However, for the subsequent imposition of additional costs, a reopening title would have been required. The lower court considered its action as a mere correction under…