Facts

Parties and instances: The appellant ([A.] ), represented by a lawyer, challenges the IV office of the Canton of Zurich (respondent). The lower instance is the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich (decision of 21 May 2019, IV.2017.01037). The Federal Supreme Court (II. Social Law Division) decides on 14 November 2019 (9C_450/2019).

Facts: The insured registered with the Disability Insurance in February 2009. The investigations included an interdisciplinary report from MGSG dated 16 February 2010 (supplement of 23 February 2012) and an expert opinion from ZIMB dated 25 June 2012, later a longitudinal assessment dated 10 August 2016 (supplement of 3 December 2016). The IV office determined a degree of disability of 13% and on 21 August 2017 issued a decision rejecting the pension application.

Requests: Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requested a three-quarter pension (1 November 2009 to 31 July 2014), a quarter pension (1 August 2014 to 31 March 2016) and a full pension from 1 April 2016; in the alternative, remittal for a polydisciplinary assessment and determination of the 2009 hypothetical income at CHF 76'159.-.

Disputed issues: (1) Entitlement to a pension for the period before June 2012 (priority of integration); (2) the amount of the hypothetical income for the period June 2012 to April 2016; (3) the probative value of the ZIMB longitudinal assessment and work capacity from April 2016.

Considerations

Scope of review: The Federal Supreme Court reviews federal law only with regard to the complaints raised (Art. 95 lit. a FSCA; Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA). The lower instance's findings of fact are binding on the Federal Supreme Court unless they are manifestly incorrect or based on a violation of law (Art. 105 FSCA, Art. 97 para. 1 FSCA). The subject matter of the dispute is whether the cantonal court violated federal law by upholding the rejection of the pension.

Pension entitlement before June 2012: Under the principle 'integration before pension' (Art. 28 para. 1 lit. a InvIA), a pension entitlement generally arises only after reasonable integration measures have been completed, even if these fail (BGE 121 V 190). Since the insured was, from November 2009, at least 50% and, from June 2012, 80% capable of work in an adapted activity and therefore capable of integration, and retraining measures were carried out, there is no pension entitlement for this period. The lower instance wrongly described the deviating figure of 50% until June 2012 in the ZIMB report as unsupported by the file; this was manifestly incorrect and not binding, but did not change the outcome.

Hypothetical income (June 2012 to April 2016): The appellant relied on the wage of CHF 76'159.- earned as a cook in 2008. The Federal Supreme Court holds that this wage is not decisive without further ado: it concerned a temporary 50% employment which would not have continued even without the health impairment, and the employment contract contained no management duties that would justify a higher wage. The employment certificate submitted for the first time before the Federal Supreme Court is a genuine novum within the meaning of Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA and is disregarded. The lower instance correctly relied on the LSE 2012 (hospitality sector, skill level 3, men), which also takes into account professional experience and additional training (certificates of competence as a cook and dietary cook). A computational error (CHF 66'052.- instead of CHF 68'052.-) was corrected. Hypothetical income: CHF 68'052.-; income with disability: CHF 44'320.- (80% work…