Invalidity pension: entitlement where capable of rehabilitation during measures and commencement of pension entitlement after completion of work training

Facts

The insured person, born in 1967, first registered with the Invalidity Insurance in August 2011 due to a mental illness. The IV-Stelle of the Canton of Zurich denied a pension entitlement by decision of 24 September 2012. In early May 2014, the insured person again applied for invalidity benefits.

From February 2015, the IV-Stelle carried out occupational rehabilitation measures and paid daily allowances. On 3 August 2016, the insured person completed the work training. Based on a multidisciplinary expert report by medexperts AG of 23 February 2017 (including a psychiatric partial report and supplement of 19 September 2017), the IV-Stelle rejected the benefit application by decision of 11 December 2017 (degree of disability 20%).

The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich partially upheld the appeal by decision of 23 August 2019. It granted the insured person a three-quarter pension from January to July 2015 and a half pension from August 2015 to November 2016.

The IV-Stelle files an appeal in public law matters and requests the annulment of the lower court's decision and the confirmation of the decision of 11 December 2017; it also requests suspensive effect. The insured person substantially requests dismissal of the appeal. The Federal Social Insurance Office waived submission of a response.

Subject matter of dispute: Whether the lower court violated federal law by granting the insured person a three-quarter invalidity pension for January to July 2015 and a half invalidity pension for August 2015 to November 2016.

Considerations

Scope of review: The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA), but, taking into account the duty to raise and substantiate complaints (Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA), examines only the arguments raised, unless other defects are manifestly evident. The lower court's findings of fact are in principle binding, unless they are manifestly incorrect or based on a violation of law (Art. 105 FSCA). The multidisciplinary expert report by medexperts AG (including the psychiatric partial report) is undisputedly decisive as the evidentiary basis.

Lower court's considerations: The lower court assumed a 70% work capacity in the previous occupation from 1 September 2016 (degree of disability 30%, not entitling to a pension). Based on the retrospective psychiatric assessment, it set the earliest possible pension commencement at January 2015 and, taking Art. 88a para. 1 IVO into account, granted a three-quarter pension or a half pension. Participation in measures under Art. 14a InvIA does not preclude the pension entitlement under Art. 22 para. 5ter InvIA.

Principle 'rehabilitation before pension': Pension benefits are only to be paid once no reasonable rehabilitation measures remain under consideration (Art. 28 para. 1 let. a InvIA). A pension entitlement arises only after the end of the measures, even in the case of partial success or failure. Before that, a pension may only be granted if the insured person is not yet capable of rehabilitation or not capable at all (BGE 121 V 190 consid. 4c-e).

Capacity for rehabilitation during receipt of daily allowances: The insured person received daily allowances for integration measures under Art. 14a InvIA from February 2015 to August 2016. After expiry of the waiting year (Art. 28 para. 1 let. b and c InvIA), according to the retrospective assessment, there was a 40% work capacity from January 2015 and a 50% work capacity from May 2015 to August 2016. The insured person was therefore, from a medical standpoint, capable of rehabilitation, so no pension entitlement exists for this period (Art. 29 para. 2 InvIA).

Provision not applicable: Art. 22 para. 5ter InvIA provides that the insurer pays a daily allowance in addition…