Disability insurance: no deduction from the disabled income and entitlement to a half pension, appeal dismissed

Facts

The appellant, [A.] , born in 1973, an office employee by profession, filed a first application for DI benefits in May 2010 relating to an accident in 2002. The Fribourg cantonal DI Office (hereinafter: the DI Office) rejected it on 26 June 2012, finding full work capacity in her profession.

After two new accidents in May and August 2012 (covered by the SUVA), the insured person filed a new application in February 2013. The psychiatric expert [B.] diagnosed a recurrent depressive disorder and borderline personality, concluding to a 50% work incapacity from 7 March 2014. The orthopaedic expert [C.] found full work capacity in an adapted activity from November 2012, except from 15 June 2015 to 15 September 2016, when it was nil.

By decision of 4 December 2017, the DI Office granted a half pension from 1 March to 30 September 2015, a full pension from 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2016, then a half pension from 1 January 2017.

The insured person appealed to the Cantonal Court of the canton of Fribourg, Ie Cour des assurances sociales, which joined the OPA collective foundation [G.] as a party. By judgment of 19 March 2019, the cantonal court partially upheld the appeal, granting a full pension from 1 August to 31 December 2013, a half pension from 1 January 2014 to 30 September 2015, a full pension from 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2016, then a half pension from 1 January 2017.

The insured person lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. She requested a right to a three-quarter pension from 1 January 2017 and a finding that her psychiatric incapacity to work had arisen before 31 January 2013.

Subject matter of the dispute: the degree of disability of the appellant from 1 January 2017 (entitlement to a three-quarter pension or to a half pension), in particular the question of a deduction from the statistical disabled income.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines of its own motion the admissibility of the appeal. The declaratory request concerning the date on which the psychiatric incapacity arose is inadmissible, for lack of a legitimate interest within the meaning of art. 89 para. 1 let. c FSCA: the psychological incapacity to work played no role in the creation of the DI pension entitlement, and the findings of disability insurance do not bind the bodies of occupational pension insurance, subject to a current interest in the immediate determination of a right.

The Federal Supreme Court rules on the basis of the facts established by the lower authority (art. 105 para. 1 FSCA), unless they are manifestly inaccurate or contrary to law (art. 105 para. 2 FSCA), and applies the law of its own motion (art. 106 para. 1 FSCA). The rate of deduction from the statistical wage depends on all personal and professional circumstances, with a maximum overall deduction of 25% (ATF 126 V 75). Whether a deduction is justified is a question of law and may be examined freely.

First, the functional limitations described by Dr [C.] have already been taken into account in the medical assessment of work capacity; they…