Inadmissibility of an appeal against an interlocutory decision ordering a medical expert opinion in disability insurance

Facts

Parties: The appellant ([A.] , represented by counsel) brings the matter before the Federal Supreme Court against the IV-Stelle of the Canton of Aargau as respondent.

Subject matter: Disability insurance (procedural requirement).

Lower court and contested decision: The Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau, by decision of 6 August 2019 (VBE.2018.919), upheld the assessment by ZVMB GmbH in Bern ordered by the IV-Stelle in its interlocutory decision of 23 October 2018. The originally proposed physicians and the standard question catalogue remained in place.

Appeal: The appellant lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 16 September 2019. He essentially argued that an assessment was not necessary and would place a psychological burden on him. He further complained that two of the proposed experts were not competent to assess cerebrally caused limitations.

Procedure: The judgment was rendered in simplified procedure by the President of the I. Social Law Division (Art. 108 para. 1 let. a FSCA).

Considerations

Examination of admissibility ex officio: The Federal Supreme Court examines ex officio and with free cognition whether an appeal is admissible. The appeal is directed against an interlocutory decision within the meaning of Art. 92 et seq. FSCA, since the classification of the court decision follows the legal nature of the contested object in the cantonal proceedings.

Independent appealability of interlocutory decisions on expert opinions: Interlocutory decisions concerning orders by the disability or accident insurer to obtain medical expert opinions are, before the Federal Supreme Court, also in light of the procedural fundamental rights under Cst. and ECHR, only independently appealable insofar as they concern the formal recusal of an expert (Art. 92 para. 1 FSCA).

No formal grounds for recusal: The appellant did not raise any formal grounds for recusal. The complaint that two experts were not competent was considered too general to be treated as a formal ground for objection. In essence, he disputed the necessity of the assessment.

Substantive objections only in the final decision: Substantive objections, such as those concerning the necessity of the assessment, cannot be submitted to the…