Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Social security ° Insurance against risks of accident and occupational disease ° Medical report ° Composition of the Medical Committee ° Appointment by the institution of a doctor approved by the insurance company or the author of the first medical report ° Whether permissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on Insurance against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Arts 19 and 23)

2. Officials ° Social security ° Insurance against risks of accident and occupational disease ° Medical report ° Functioning of the Medical Committee ° Taking account of medical documents drawn up in advance ° Discretion of the Medical Committee

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on Insurance against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Art. 23)

3. Officials ° Social security ° Insurance against risks of accident and occupational disease ° Invalidity ° Degree of invalidity ° Determination by the Medical Committee ° Later conflicting medical reports submitted by the official ° Taking into account by the appointing authority for the purposes of drawing up its decision ° Obligation ° None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on Insurance against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, Arts 19 and 23)

Summary

1. Under the system created by Articles 19 and 23 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, the official' s interests are safeguarded by the fact that he is examined twice, first by a doctor enjoying the confidence of the institution and, in the event of disagreement, by a Medical Committee to which both parties appoint a doctor enjoying their confidence and of which the third member is appointed by agreement between the other two members.

The fact that the institution chose a doctor who was also approved by its own insurance company could in no way adversely affect the interests of the official concerned. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent the institution from appointing as a member of the Medical Committee provided for by Article 23 of the abovementioned Rules the same doctor as the one whom it chose to draw up the first medical report.

2. It is for the Medical Committee to which a matter is referred pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease to decide to what extent account should be taken of medical reports drawn up in advance and documents should be examined other than those before the Committee.

The mere fact that the Medical Committee' s report does not refer expressly to medical documents drawn up at the request of the official which he was entitled to assume had been submitted to the Committee is not sufficient to invalidate the Committee' s report if at least two of its members had cognizance of those documents and the third was aware of the official' s state of health.

In any case, a procedural irregularity will entail the annulment of a decision in whole or in part only if it is shown that, in the absence of such irregularity, the contested decision might have been substantively different.

3. Decisions of the appointing authority under Article 19 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease must be based exclusively on the findings of the doctor or doctors appointed by the institution or on the findings of the Medical Committee provided for by Article 23 of the said Rules, as the case may be. It follows that, in adopting a decision determining the degree of invalidity of an official, the appointing authority cannot be required to take account of medical reports submitted by the person concerned after the Medical Committee has duly given its findings, which must be regarded as final and may not be challenged in the absence of any new matter of fact. That new matter of fact may not consist in the production by the person concerned of medical certificates calling in question the Committee' s conclusions, but putting forward no ground which would suggest that the Committee did not have knowledge of the principal facts contained in his medical records.