Facts
The appellant, a postal employee, registered with the disability insurance on 19 December 2006 to claim benefits. The IV office of the Canton of Aargau obtained an interdisciplinary expert report from Medas Oberaargau dated 8 September 2008 and, at a degree of incapacity of 27%, denied the pension entitlement (decision of 11 February 2009). The Cantonal Insurance Court of Aargau finally dismissed the appeal by decision of 3 March 2010. A further registration of 4 July 2012 was not entered into by the IV office by decision of 11 February 2013.
On 30 March 2016 the insured person again registered for occupational integration or pension benefits due to multiple pain and psychological problems. The IV office had him assessed polydisciplinarily by Swiss Medical Assessment- and Business-Center AG (SMAB); the report is dated 20 December 2017. By decision of 12 July 2018 the IV office again denied the pension entitlement. The Cantonal Insurance Court of Aargau dismissed the appeal by decision of 15 May 2019, insofar as it entered into it.
Before the Federal Supreme Court the insured person requested annulment of the cantonal decision and the award of a full pension, alternatively remittal for further investigation; he also applied for legal aid. The Federal Supreme Court did not order a second exchange of briefs.
Subject matter of the dispute: Whether the lower court violated federal law by confirming the dismissal of the pension application in the re-registration and revision proceedings.
Formal complaint: The insured person complained that it was not apparent whether the case officer who signed the decision of 12 July 2018 was authorised to sign, which violated Art. 29 Cst.
Considerations
An appeal in public law matters may complain of a violation of federal law (Art. 95 lit. a FSCA). The establishment of facts may only be challenged if it is manifestly incorrect or based on a violation of law and the correction of the defect could be decisive (Art. 97 para. 1 FSCA; Art. 105 FSCA). The complaint of a violation of fundamental rights requires a qualified duty to state and substantiate the complaint (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA), which also applies where a manifestly incorrect establishment of facts is alleged.
On the formal complaint, the Federal Supreme Court holds that federal law does not require a general signature requirement for social insurance decisions; it does not follow from the principle of written form (Art. 49 para. 1 GSSLA). The contested decision bore the signature of a case officer of the IV office, so there was no defect in notification. The lower court further stated that, on the basis of the letterhead, the decision came from the IV office, so that external effect could be inferred even if signing authority was lacking. A manifestly incorrect finding was not demonstrated; an usurpation of competence with the consequence of nullity does not exist. As the complaint of a violation of Art. 29 Cst. is not sufficiently substantiated, it need not be considered further.
On the merits, a new registration is only examined substantively if the insured person credibly shows that the actual circumstances have changed to a degree relevant to the pension entitlement since the last final decision (Art. 87 para. 3 in conjunction with para. 2 InvIO). If this is credibly shown, the administration is obliged to conduct a comprehensive review, proceeding analogously to a revision case under Art. 17 GSSLA. If it finds no change in the degree of incapacity, it rejects the application.
The lower court took as the point of comparison the dismissal decision of 11 February 2009, which was based on the report of Medas Oberaargau. At that time a mild depressive episode, a chronic panvertebral pain syndrome and multilocular pain symptoms were diagnosed; the insured person had 80% working capacity in a light to occasionally moderately heavy activity. Based on the SMAB report of 20 December 2017, which it classified as having probative value, the lower court found that since the decision of 11 February 2009 there had been no relevant change in the state of…