Facts

The claimant, born in 1979 ([A.] ), worked for [B. AG] from 1 December 2001 to 31 January 2017 and was compulsorily insured against accidents with Suva as a result. Following a car accident on 7 June 2013 with fractures to the right foot and left hand, Suva acknowledged its liability to pay benefits. As of 31 January 2017 it discontinued the daily allowances, as the insured person was again 75% able to work. Following a relapse notification dated 31 July 2018, Suva again paid daily allowances for 100% incapacity for work.

Based on an evaluation of functional capacity at the Rehaklinik [C.] (report dated 9 July 2019), Suva announced on 23 July 2019 the closure of the case as of 31 August 2019. By decision of 31 July 2019 it granted a disability pension from 1 September 2019 based on a degree of disability of 22%, as well as an integrity compensation for 13% integrity loss. In the objection decision of 12 May 2020 it increased the degree of disability to 23%; the integrity compensation was no longer disputed (partially final).

The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft dismissed the appeal by judgment of 22 October 2020. The insured person lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and primarily requested the continued payment of daily allowances until completion of training as a medical secretary, and alternatively a pension based on a degree of disability of 38%. Suva requested dismissal, and the FOPH waived a response.

Subject matter of the dispute:

  • Admissibility of the case closure as of 31 August 2019 (timing, IV reintegration measures)
  • Applicable SUVA/LSE competence level for disability income (level 1 or 2)
  • Amount of the deduction from the table wage

The disability income was set at CHF 44'016.- and the income without disability at CHF 57'024.-, resulting in a degree of disability of 23%.

Considerations

1. Complaint of violation of the right to be heard The claimant complained of a violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.), because the lower court had not addressed her submissions regarding higher income as a medical secretary and the competence level. The Federal Supreme Court rejected this: the lower court had explained that the insured person could also earn disability income at level 2 without the training, and had reasoned the decisive points. There is no duty to expressly refute every party submission (BGE 142 II 49, BGE 136 I 229).

2. Case closure and IV reintegration measures Under Art. 19 para. 1 AAA, case closure may be postponed while IV reintegration measures are still ongoing, whereby this reservation for occupational measures only relates to measures that can influence the degree of disability (BGE/RKUV 2004 U 508). The training course as a medical secretary, financed by the IV, was qualified as an early intervention measure under Art. 7d para. 2 lit. b InvIA and not as a reintegration measure under Art. 8 et seq. InvIA. The IV office had also repeatedly notified that reintegration measures were not possible. Whether it was an early intervention or a reintegration measure could be left open, as the insured person could also earn the disability income calculated by Suva without the training. The case closure as of 31 August 2019 is therefore not objectionable.

3. Competence level 2 of the LSE Where the insured person cannot rely on a former occupation, level 2 is justified only in the case of special skills and knowledge. The lower court affirmed this based on the completed apprenticeship as a sportswear salesperson, the management activity as a branch manager with five employees, the function as training supervisor and team leader, the activity as examination expert, further training, and the training as a medical secretary. Decisive for the classification was the long-standing employment with [B. AG] involving training and management tasks. The objection that low wages in retail suggest level 1 fails, as it is not the wage earned but the knowledge acquired that is decisive. The unpaid expert activity does not change this. Judgment…