Facts
The insured person, born in 1970, worked as a piece-rate bricklayer from 1998 until April 2007. After registering with the disability insurance (IV) on 10 July 2007 due to back complaints, the IV office of Schwyz granted occupational measures; it rejected a pension application by decision of 3 June 2009. From April 2010 the insured person worked as a concrete production employee at [C. AG] , which terminated the employment relationship for economic reasons effective 31 March 2018.
On 22 January 2018 the insured person again registered for benefits due to a herniated disc. The IV office obtained, among other things, an orthopaedic report dated 4 April 2018 commissioned by PMEDA on behalf of the CSS insurance (daily allowance insurance); the Regional Medical Service (RAD) commented on it on 14 August 2018, and another RAD physician commented on more recent medical reports on 14 March 2019.
By decision of 5 April 2019, the IV office denied the entitlement to a disability pension at a degree of disability of 14%. On the same day it informed the insured person that it would cover the costs of vocational guidance and assessment of occupational reintegration options with a view to retraining measures; this did not conclude the proceedings.
The Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz dismissed the appeal by decision of 8 August 2019. The insured person lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the award of a disability pension or, in the alternative, remittal to the IV office for a new decision after completion of the integration measures; he also requested a second exchange of written submissions.
The subject matter of the dispute was therefore whether the IV office was entitled to decide on the pension entitlement while integration measures were ongoing, and whether the PMEDA report could be regarded as probative.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the violation of federal law freely (Art. 95 lit. a FSCA) and is bound by the facts established by the lower court, unless these were established in a manifestly incorrect or legally flawed manner (Art. 97 para. 1, Art. 105 FSCA). The request for a second exchange of written submissions is rejected, as the position of the respondent is on file and a further exchange of submissions generally does not take place (Art. 102 para. 3 FSCA).
The lower court correctly set out the applicable principles on incapacity for work, disability, assessment of evidence and the probative value of medical reports (Art. 7, Art. 8 para. 1 GSSLA), to which reference is made. Relying on the orthopaedic PMEDA report and the consistent RAD statements, the lower court assumed that the insured person can no longer be expected to perform his previous work in the construction industry, whereas physically light work with alternating postures is fully possible. It explained divergent assessments by treating physicians by the different mandates of assessment and treatment.
A pension entitlement cannot arise as long as integration measures with daily allowances are being carried out (BGE 126 V 241 E. 5). In this case, however, the IV office only granted the insured person vocational guidance and assessment, without an ancillary entitlement to daily…