Facts

The insured person, born in 1952, had worked as a gardener for [B. AG] since 19 April 1990 and was insured with the Swiss Accident Insurance Institution (Suva) against the consequences of accidents and occupational diseases.

On 2 March 2015, the uppermost part of a three-part ladder came loose while it was being dismantled and fell onto the insured person's head. According to the discharge report from Hospital [C.] dated 3 March 2015, he sustained a central scalping injury to the scalp. Computed tomography of the skull and cervical spine (HWS) showed neither fracture nor haemorrhage. There was a pre-existing condition following a gunshot injury to the left eye in 1986.

Suva initially provided insurance benefits. By decision of 12 June 2017, it discontinued these benefits as of 30 June 2017 and denied entitlement to a pension and integrity compensation for lack of adequate causal connection. Upon objection, it maintained this position (decision on objection of 17 January 2018).

The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal by judgment of 5 March 2019 (UV.2018.00054).

Before the Federal Supreme Court, the insured person requested remittal for supplementary investigations. Suva requested dismissal with reference to the decision on objection. The cantonal court and the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) waived submission of observations.

On 28 June 2019, the insured person filed, without being invited to do so, a reply and a newspaper report dated 2 June 2019.

Subject matter of the dispute: Whether the lower court correctly upheld the discontinuation of insurance benefits arising from the accident of 2 March 2015, ordered as of 30 June 2017 and confirmed by the decision on objection (causal connection, closure of the case, adequacy).

Considerations

Admissibility of the submissions: A right of reply exists only for responding to submissions of the opposing party (unconditional right of reply, Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR and Art. 29 para. 1 Cst.). Since the cantonal court and the BAG waived submission of observations and Suva merely referred to its reasoning, the reply filed unsolicited after the expiry of the time limit for appeal was not considered. The newspaper report constitutes a genuine novum within the meaning of Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA and likewise remained unconsidered. The complaint regarding invalid service by ordinary mail is unfounded, as this does not result in the nullity of the decision and the appeal was filed in time.

Duty to give reasons and right to be heard: The complaint of refusal to give reasons or sham reasoning is unfounded. The lower court is not required to address every objection in detail; it suffices that the decision as a whole shows which circumstances were material and which considerations guided the court.

Scope of review: The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion but, in principle, only examines the complaints raised. For cash benefits of accident insurance, it is not bound by the lower court's findings of fact.

Closure of the case and causality: On the basis of the medical records, the lower court found that no accident-related organic substrate was still demonstrable. Imaging and neurological findings showed no structural lesions, only external soft tissue swelling. No significant improvement was to be expected from further treatment, so the closure of the case as of 30 June 2017 is not open to objection (Art. 19 para. 1 AIA). The complaints were initially not reported after the accident; shoulder complaints first arose more than one and a half years after the accident.

Investigation principle and anticipatory assessment of evidence: Waiving the obtaining of further records (rescue, ambulance, emergency department, police,…