Facts
The appellant, a physician born in 1977, completed her medical studies in 2008 and from 1 January 2009 worked as a resident in gynaecology at Hospital B. On 22 March 2009 she suffered a fracture of L1 in a snowboarding fall. In August 2010 she applied to the disability insurance (IV) for benefits. From January 2012 she worked as a resident in a psychiatric clinic. In its report of 29 August 2012, the Regional Medical Service concluded that training as a specialist in psychiatry/psychotherapy was ideally an adapted activity.
By decision of 19 November 2012, the IV office of the Canton of St. Gallen refused to grant cost coverage for the specialist training for lack of disability-related additional costs and denied an entitlement to a pension.
On 16 March 2017 the insured person requested procedural revision of this decision, arguing that the specialist psychiatric training had not been possible because of back pain. After the pre-decision procedure, the IV office by decision of 12 September 2017 did not enter into the request. The Insurance Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal by judgment of 11 March 2019, insofar as it was admissible.
Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requested that the judgment of the lower court and the decision of 12 September 2017 be set aside, that the revision request be substantively examined, alternatively that it be treated as a re-registration under Art. 87 para. 2 InvIO with entitlement to a full disability pension, and that a second exchange of written submissions be ordered.
The subject matter of the dispute was whether the requirements for a procedural revision of the decision of 19 November 2012 were met, in particular whether the revision request was submitted within the relative 90-day time limit.
Considerations
The appeal in public law matters is governed by Art. 95 and 96 FSCA. The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA), but, taking into account the duty to raise and substantiate complaints (Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA), it examines only the arguments raised. It relies on the facts established by the lower court and may correct them only where they are manifestly incorrect or violate the law (Art. 105 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA). A second exchange of written submissions generally does not take place (Art. 102 para. 3 FSCA); such an exchange was not necessary here.
The subject of the appeal is solely the procedural revision of the decision of 19 November 2012. The requests concerning a material change in the facts (Art. 17 GSSLA in conjunction with Art. 87 para. 2 InvIO) and the award of a pension were rightly not addressed and cannot be entered into before the Federal Supreme Court. The complaint that the decision of 12 September 2017 was formally defective because of the reference to a 'benefit application' is unfounded, since it is unmistakably clear that the revision request was rejected and the decision could be appropriately challenged.
Under Art. 53 para. 1 GSSLA, formally final decisions are to be revised if significant new facts are discovered or new evidence is found whose submission was previously not possible. New facts must have arisen before the conclusion of the main proceedings, must have been unknown to the applicant despite reasonable diligence, and must be capable of changing the decision upon a correct legal assessment. New facts and evidence must be asserted within 90 days of their discovery; in addition, an absolute time limit of ten years from notification of the decision applies. The relative time limit begins upon secure knowledge of the new significant fact, whereby mere assumptions or rumours are insufficient; rather, knowledge based on secure foundations is required (BGE 143 V 105 E. 2.1-2.4).
The lower court assumed that the insured person had known at the latest at the beginning of 2013 that the resident's activity could no longer serve as the basis for the income from employment, so that the request of March 2017 was late. The appellant, by contrast, argued that the decisions of the…