Facts

Parties: The appellant (insured person, born 1962, most recently employed as an auxiliary worker in a bakery) is represented by a lawyer. The respondent is the IV-Stelle of the Canton of Graubünden. The lower instance is the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden.

Facts: The insured person registered with the Disability Insurance on 23 April 2015 to claim benefits. The IV-Stelle had him assessed by the Ärztliches Begutachtungsinstitut GmbH (ABI) in a multidisciplinary assessment (expert report of 25 January 2017). By preliminary notice of 15 May 2017, the administration granted a full disability pension for the period from 1 November 2015 to 31 March 2017 and, by decision of 28 November 2017, maintained this position. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal by decision of 12 February 2019.

Requests before the Federal Supreme Court: The insured person requested that the cantonal decision be set aside and that it be declared that he is also entitled to a full disability pension after 1 April 2017; in the alternative, the matter be remitted to the lower instance.

Subject matter in dispute: Probative value of the ABI report (duration of the psychiatric examination), usability of residual work capacity, determination of the healthy and disability income, and deduction for impairment-related limitations.

Considerations

Novel evidence: The reports of 6 and 18 March 2019, submitted for the first time before the Federal Supreme Court, were produced after the contested decision and are genuine novelties, which remain inadmissible under Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA. The further reports of 2017 and 2018, submitted only at the last instance, are false novelties, as the insured person does not explain how the lower-instance decision gave occasion for their submission; these too remain inadmissible.

Standard of review: The Federal Supreme Court examines the violation of federal law (Art. 95 let. a FSCA) and is bound by the facts established by the lower instance (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA). Complaints concerning the facts are admissible only where the facts are manifestly incorrect or established in violation of law within the meaning of Art. 95 FSCA (Art. 97 para. 1 and Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA).

Probative value of the report: The lower instance considered the ABI report probative and assumed a work capacity of 70% in a light, alternating-load activity since January 2017. According to case law, the duration of the psychiatric examination of 55 minutes does not in itself constitute a lack of diligence; decisive are the substantive completeness and coherence of the report. The expert addressed the standard indicators, including the question of resources, and explained why the complained-of symptoms would have no effect on work capacity. The lower instance did not violate federal law by attributing probative value to the report. The criticism of the assessment of evidence, based on the reports of the psychiatric services [B.] , merely constitutes a different assessment of its own and does not satisfy the requirements for a complaint concerning the facts. The findings of the lower instance on state of health and work capacity are therefore binding.

Usability of residual work capacity: The lower instance affirmed that the residual work capacity was usable on the balanced labour market for simple auxiliary activities. Decisive is the point in time of the ABI report; the insured person, then aged 54, had roughly ten years of remaining active working life until ordinary retirement, which is sufficient to take up and perform a new auxiliary activity. The objections regarding limited performance capacity and advanced age do not demonstrate that utilisation would be unreasonable.

Assessment of…