Facts
The insured, born in 1969, was most recently employed as a managing director and registered with the disability insurance in September 2005 for benefits due to psychological problems. By decision of 9 April 2008, the IV-Stelle Bern granted him a three-quarter disability pension from 1 September 2004 at a degree of disability of 60%. By decision of 29 November 2011, the pension was reduced on revision to a half pension from 1 January 2012 at a degree of disability of 50%.
In June 2017 the IV-Stelle initiated a revision procedure and obtained a psychiatric report from Dr. med. [B.] dated 20 September 2018. By decision of 14 May 2019, the IV-Stelle terminated the current pension from 1 July 2019 at a degree of disability now of 20%.
The Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the appeal by decision of 5 May 2020. The insured lodged an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting a full pension, alternatively a three-quarter or, subsidiarily, a half pension, and subsubsidiarily remittal for further medical investigations. The IV-Stelle requested dismissal; the INO waived a response.
The question at issue was whether the cantonal court violated federal law by confirming the termination of the half pension from 1 July 2019. It was undisputed that the state of health had materially changed between the reduction and the termination of the pension; the insured asserted a deterioration, while the lower court and the administration found an improvement.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA) and generally examines only the complaints raised (Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA). Findings of fact can only be corrected if they are manifestly incorrect or violate the law (Art. 105 para. 2 and Art. 97 para. 1 FSCA); an assessment of evidence is arbitrary only if the meaning and scope of a piece of evidence are manifestly misjudged or untenable conclusions are drawn.
A ground for revision under Art. 17 para. 1 GSSLA exists, as the state of health has materially changed. The entitlement to a pension must therefore be reassessed comprehensively and without being bound by earlier assessments. The relevant period is in principle up to the conclusion of the administrative procedure; later medical reports must be considered insofar as they allow conclusions about the earlier situation.
The lower court found that the orthopaedic condition had arisen only after 14 May 2019. The Federal Supreme Court considers this finding to be clearly contrary to the file: the insured has received an accident insurance pension from Suva since 1 September 1997 due to an accident of 26 October 1994, and the district physician Dr. med. [C.] was consulted because the knee condition was allegedly worse since 2005.
The alternative reasoning, according to which reliance could be placed on the work capacity profile of the Suva district physician, misjudges, according to the Federal Supreme Court, the scope of the district physician's assessment. The district physician had to consider only health damage causally related to the accident; he recognised only the damage to the right knee as accident-related, while the left knee, the hip and a damage to the right upper ankle requiring investigation were regarded as unrelated to the accident. In the disability insurance, which does not cover only accident-related damage, relying on this profile without further investigation violates the principle of inquiry. The…