Facts
The complainant [A.] , born on 7 February 1958, re-registered with the disability insurance on 2 June 2017 to claim benefits and asserted health impairments affecting his hands, knees and back.
The IV office of the Canton of Aargau granted him a half disability pension from 1 May 2018 by decision of 28 November 2018. The Insurance Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the appeal by decision of 10 September 2019.
The lower court found a work capacity of 50% in an adapted activity, affirmed its usability in view of age and the profile of reasonable requirements, and determined a degree of disability of 53% in the income comparison.
By appeal in public law matters, the complainant applied for the award of a full disability pension from 1 May 2018. The disputed issue to be examined was the usability of residual work capacity under the aspect of advanced age. The assessment of disability was uncontested.
The medical assessment decisive for the case was that of the Regional Medical Service (Dr. med. [B.] , specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation and rheumatology) of 12 July 2018; at that time the complainant was 60 years and 5 months old.
Considerations
The appeal in public law matters is admissible under Art. 82 ff. FSCA. The Federal Supreme Court is bound by the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA), unless they are manifestly incorrect or based on a violation of law (Art. 97 para. 1, Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA); complaints are limited to violations of law under Art. 95 f. FSCA.
Case law recognises that advanced age, together with further personal and professional circumstances (nature and consequences of the health impairment, effort required for retraining and induction, personality structure, aptitudes, education, professional career, applicability of professional experience), may lead to the residual work capacity no longer being in demand on the balanced labour market. The decisive point in time for the assessment is when medical reasonableness becomes established (BGE 145 V 2 E. 5.3.1; BGE 138 V 457 E. 3).
At the time of medical reasonableness the complainant still had around four years and seven months until the AHV retirement age. This period is in principle sufficient to take up and become familiar with a simple activity such as control, monitoring, sorting, inspection or packaging work, as well as light assembly work.
The complainant holds a federal certificate of proficiency as a salesperson, worked for more than a decade in this field and was self-employed for many years. His changes of position attest to adaptability. He therefore has training and experience that he can use in an adapted activity. In addition, he was employed at a workload of 35 hours per week until the end of March 2017, so there is no occupational disintegration.
The restrictions asserted by the complainant, which are said to exclude simple assembly, packaging and sorting work, were not substantiated. These activities can be carried out in alternating loading or predominantly seated, and the impairment is taken into account by the workload reduced to 50%. Moreover, the balanced labour market includes niche…