Facts

The appellant (born 1977) was employed by a company from 1 August 1993 to 31 October 2016, most recently at 55 %. On 8 October 2014 she applied to the Disability Insurance for benefits due to back complaints.

By decision of 4 February 2019, the IV office of Basel-Landschaft, applying the mixed assessment method (gainful activity share 56 %, household share 44 %), granted her a time-limited full disability pension for the period from 1 May 2015 to 29 February 2016 (degree of invalidity 100 %). The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft dismissed the appeal against this on 11 July 2019.

The appellant requests before the Federal Supreme Court that she be granted at least a quarter pension including child pensions from 1 January 2018, after a correct household assessment report is obtained.

Subject matter of the dispute: Whether the lower court violated federal law by denying a pension claim from 1 January 2018. Undisputed are the time-limited pension claim from 1 May 2015 to 29 February 2016, the mixed assessment method (56 % / 44 %), and the reasonableness of light, predominantly sedentary activities in the gainful sphere (gainful activity degree of invalidity 40.08 %).

Household assessment (report of 11 December 2017, statements of 17 April and 18 October 2018):

  • Nutrition: 30 %
  • Housing/home upkeep: 30 % (after transfer of tasks from the category 'Miscellaneous')
  • Laundry and clothing care: 15 %
  • Care of children or family members: 20 %
  • Shopping: no restriction
  • Overall restriction in the household sphere: 24.55 %

According to the lower court, the overall degree of invalidity from January 2018 is 33 % (gainful activity weighted at 22.04 % and household weighted at 11.05 %), so there is no entitlement to a pension.

Considerations

Scope of review: The Federal Supreme Court is bound by the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA) and may only correct or supplement them if they are manifestly incorrect or based on a violation of law (Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA). The findings based on a household assessment report regarding the nature and extent of restrictions in the household are factual in nature and subject to limited review. The probative value of the report as such, however, is a legal question that is freely reviewable.

Duty to give reasons (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.): A violation exists only if the decision does not reveal, even in summary form, the considerations on which the court was guided; engagement with every objection is not required. The lower court has sufficiently set out the essential points (reasonableness of brief standing up, plausibility of the household assessment, no disproportionate burden on the husband, differences from the household damage under liability law). The complaint is unfounded.

Governing principles: For restrictions in the household, the medically theoretical incapacity to work is not decisive; rather, the concrete effect of the health impairment in the household sphere, established by an on-site assessment, is (Art. 69 para. 2 sentence 2 InvIO). The assessment also extends to the reasonable assistance of family members, which under the duty to mitigate damage goes further than the support customary without a health impairment. An assessment report has probative value if it is prepared by a qualified person who knows the circumstances, takes into account the statements of the insured person, shows divergent opinions, and is plausible, reasoned and detailed. The court only intervenes in the discretion of the assessing person in cases of clearly identifiable misjudgments, which is a question of evaluation of evidence and not of administrative discretion. Under the duty to mitigate damage, a disability-related loss is only to be assumed to the extent that tasks which can no longer be performed cannot be taken over either by third parties for pay or by relatives without proven loss of earnings or disproportionate burden.

Probative value of the household report: The Federal Supreme Court rejects a violation of the complaints that divergent opinions were not reproduced, since it was not shown which deviating statements are missing. The assessment in the 'shopping' category (no restriction) is comprehensible, as small purchases are medically reasonable, large purchases and carrying are done by the husband or son, and administrative tasks can be performed by the insured person. The other restrictions (nutrition, laundry, child care, housing upkeep) are also plausibly reasoned. The sitting requirement applies only to the gainful sphere; in the household there is more flexibility, and the insured person must develop behaviours that reduce the consequences of the disability. Forgoing the determination of an exact number of additional hours is permissible, since in household reports an estimate in percentages suffices, unlike for the intensive care supplement. Likewise, forgoing a comparison with abstract SAKE average values is not objectionable. The cleaning lady engaged in May 2018 (approx. two hours per week) does not change the…