Facts
The appellant (born 1957), represented by attorney Christian Haag, applied for benefits from the disability insurance in November 2015. By decision of 8 September 2017, following investigations and a preliminary notice procedure, the IV Office Lucerne granted him a quarter pension from 1 May 2016 (degree of disability 45%).
The Cantonal Court of Lucerne dismissed the appeal lodged against this decision by ruling of 29 April 2019 (5V 17 506).
By way of a federal appeal in public law matters, the appellant requests that the cantonal ruling and the decision be set aside and that he be granted a half disability pension from 1 May 2016.
The cantonal court found that the appellant could reasonably be expected to resume his former activity as an IT systems specialist on a full-time basis with a 40% performance reduction. The 2016 valid income was set at Fr. 137'819.50 (information from the last employer, Federal Office for Information Technology and Telecommunications). The disability income, based on the LSE table wage, was set at Fr. 69'773.95 without deduction. This resulted in a degree of disability of 49%, which is why the entitlement to a quarter pension was confirmed.
The only point in dispute is whether a deduction for disability must be made from the disability income. In this regard, the appellant argued his restricted capacity for work, insufficiently considered health impairments, his age and his years of service with the last employer.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines only the alleged violations of law (Art. 95 f. FSCA) and bases its review on the findings of fact of the lower court, unless there is a manifest inaccuracy within the meaning of Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA. An entitlement to a half pension requires a degree of disability of at least 50% (Art. 28 para. 2 InvIA); the degree of disability is determined by comparing incomes under Art. 16 GSSLA in conjunction with Art. 28a para. 1 InvIA.
A deduction from the LSE table wage is possible if personal and professional characteristics such as the nature and extent of the disability, age, years of service, nationality, residence category or level of employment influence the wage level. The overall deduction is estimated at the court's discretion and may not exceed 25% (BGE 126 V 75). Whether a deduction is to be made is a legal question subject to free review.
With regard to the level of employment, a deduction for men is only justified in the case of part-time employment due to health reasons, not in the case of full-time employment with reduced capacity. Since the cantonal court had bindingly established that a full-time workload is reasonable and that part-time work is not necessary, this ground for deduction is excluded. The higher administrative burden for the employer does not justify a departure from this practice; the appellant did not present any serious reasons for a change in practice.
According to the lower court's findings, the health deficits were already comprehensively taken into account in the medical assessment of work capacity. An arbitrary determination of facts was not substantiated. The RAD physician had classified the diagnoses of arterial hypertension and anxious-depressive disorder as having no…