Search

The article deals with two cases regarding the recognition of spinal diseases as occupational diseases. In the first case, the lawsuit of a parcel delivery worker was dismissed because no sufficiently probable connection between the occupational activity and the disease could be established. In the second case, the accident of a member of the parents' council of a municipal kindergarten was recognized as a work-related accident because the activity served the common good and could be assigned to the kindergarten's area of responsibility. The Federal Social Court demands a more extensive causality examination in medical science, which must be based on the current state of medical knowledge. [Extracted from the article]

The article describes a case in which a plaintiff claims a lower leg venous thrombosis as a vaccination complication after receiving a Covid-19 vaccination with an mRNA vaccine. A doctor identified a temporal connection between the vaccination and the thrombosis, but no probable causal connection could be proven. The social court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff has no entitlement to recognition of a vaccination injury. Another case deals with the entitlement to benefits according to § 19 para. 6 SGB XII, in which it was determined that the patient was not compulsory insured with the defendant party and that German law does not allow for the unilateral application of SGB V. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with two legal disputes regarding the recognition of work-related accidents. In the first case, a civil worker was injured while cleaning a donkey and suffered a torn cruciate ligament. The social court obliged the defendant to recognize the accident as a work-related accident. In the second case, a member of the volunteer fire department was diagnosed with Hepatitis B. The social court determined it to be an occupational disease, while the regional social court dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff argues that as a firefighter, he was exposed to an increased risk of infection. It is stated that the risk of infection is increased during firefighting operations, especially during activities such as mountain rescue and wastewater disposal. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of NovaCura is the property of Hogrefe AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article describes two court cases concerning the inclusion of a medical device and a medication in the medical aids directory of health insurance. In both cases, the lawsuits were dismissed because the plaintiffs could not provide evidence of the medical benefits. In the first case, it was about a motorized motion splint for the knee, where additional functions were not sufficiently proven. In the second case, a pregnant woman sued for reimbursement of a medication that was not approved for the chosen application area and had insufficient scientific evidence of its benefits. The court emphasized that insured individuals are only allowed to resort to all available medical means in emergency-like extreme situations and that the quality and effectiveness of medications must comply with approval standards. [Extracted from the article]

The article deals with the question of video surveillance in K. Garden. The plaintiff has sued the city because he believes that the surveillance violates his privacy. The administrative court dismissed the lawsuit, but the plaintiff has appealed. The Bavarian Administrative Court of Justice has ruled that the video surveillance of the plaintiff is unlawful and violates his rights. The video surveillance is considered as an interference with the fundamental right to informational self-determination and is therefore not justified. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports on a procedure before the LSG Niedersachsen-Bremen concerning the imposition of costs due to fault. The complainant had filed a lawsuit as a legal representative against a reimbursement notice from the job center. The court dismissed the lawsuit and imposed the costs of the procedure on the complainant and the plaintiff. An appeal against the judgment was filed, but it was rejected. The complainant also separately lodged a complaint against the imposition of fault costs, but did not provide any justification. The present text concerns a judgment in a legal dispute concerning the imposition of costs. It is explained that a judgment can only be rendered between the parties involved in the legal dispute and not against the legal representative of a party. Decisions against outsiders can only be made by resolution. It is also pointed out that complaints against decisions, as in this case, are not excluded. It is further explained that the court rightly imposed fault costs on the complainant and that this can be done due to the negligent or abusive behavior of the legal representative. In the present case, it concerns the imposition of fault costs according to § 192 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2 SGG. The prerequisite for this is the abusive pursuit of legal action and the causal incurrence of costs due to the continuation of the legal dispute. In the specific case, the complainant had already been repeatedly informed about the abusive nature of the lawsuit, but still continued the legal dispute. The court then decided to partially impose the costs incurred on the complainant. The amount of the imposed costs is 250 euros. Since January 1, 2022, filing an appeal by fax no longer meets the requirements for transmission as an electronic document, unless it can be credibly demonstrated that transmission was temporarily impossible for technical reasons. In the present case, it concerns the delivery of an objection decision via the electronic court and administration mailbox (EGVP) to the special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) of the plaintiff's legal representative. The defendant received a confirmation of receipt that the objection decision was successfully sent. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a lawsuit, claiming that the objection decision was only received later. The social court dismissed the lawsuit because the deadline for filing the lawsuit was not met. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, but not within the statutory deadline and not in electronic form. The present text concerns the ineffectiveness of an electronic submission due to technical problems. It is stated that no temporary impossibility of electronic transmission has been credibly demonstrated. It is also emphasized that the interpretation and application of procedural provisions that restrict the right to be heard are subject to stricter constitutional control. It is also pointed out that the plaintiffs have no entitlement to reinstatement. The appeal against the social court's decision is considered admissible and justified. The present text deals with the interpretation of § 67 para. 4 sentence 2 SGG regarding reinstatement. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Changement is the property of Solutions by HANDELSBLATT MEDIA GROUP GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Changement is the property of Solutions by HANDELSBLATT MEDIA GROUP GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses whether an infection with the Covid-19 virus can be recognized as a work accident. A court ruling states that the penetration of the virus into the body can be considered as a temporally limited event caused by an external force. However, a Covid-19 risk calculator is not considered suitable for providing evidence of causality in individual cases. It is determined that no evidentiary relief is granted in cases of general infection risk. The court case deals with a specific situation in which an employee claims to have been infected at the workplace. The employer rejected the recognition of the infection as a work accident since no intense contact with an infectious person could be proven. The court decided that there is no sufficient connection between the illness and the plaintiff's professional activity. The plaintiff is not entitled to the determination of a Covid-19 infection as a work accident. Although an infection with the Covid-19 virus can generally be considered an accident event, there is insufficient probability that the plaintiff's professional activity significantly caused the accident event. Although the temporal sequence of the infections of the plaintiff and his colleague suggests an infection at the workplace, there are also factors that speak against it, such as limited contact and compliance with distance and protective measures. The Robert Koch Institute does not classify the infection risk for the plaintiff as increased and considers an indirect infection through aerosols as unlikely. The plaintiff claims to have been infected with the Covid-19 virus during his professional activity. However, the chamber doubts the possibility of air circulation between the offices and points out that the plaintiff also ensured fresh air through a tilted window. The Covid-19 risk calculator of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry cannot be used for the specific case since mathematical models for the spread of virus particles indoors work with considerable uncertainties. Due to the lack of objective evidence, it cannot be proven whether the plaintiff was infected professionally or privately with the virus. Therefore, the lawsuit is dismissed. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Die Politische Meinung is the property of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Aufsichtsrat is the property of Fachmedien Otto Schmidt KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article describes a court ruling by the LSG Baden-Württemberg, which concerns the obligation of the defendant to obtain a nursing assessment report from an independent medical expert instead of the Medical Service of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (MDK). The plaintiff filed a lawsuit because he believed that the nursing assessment procedure violated legal requirements. The social court dismissed the lawsuit, after which the plaintiff filed an appeal. In the appeal proceedings, further nursing assessment reports were obtained. The plaintiff requested the defendant to conduct the nursing assessment through an independent expert. In the present case, it is a lawsuit against the defendant. The social court dismissed the lawsuit due to a lack of decision and referred the case to the court. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not respond to his application and did not send him any information or notifications. The court proceedings are not yet concluded as the plaintiff has filed an appeal. In the present case, the social court (SG) dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit as it considered the plaintiff's requests inadmissible. However, the SG committed a significant procedural error by misunderstanding the plaintiff's claim. In his lawsuit, the plaintiff requested the defendant to decide on his application for the determination of a delay fee. However, the SG decided on an inaction lawsuit aimed at deciding on the application for the determination of a delay fee, which violates § 123 SGG. The violation of § 123 SGG is not cured as the plaintiff himself filed an appeal against the decision of the SG. A change of the lawsuit would also not be admissible as the defendant did not consent to the amended lawsuit, and a connection between the inaction lawsuit and the determination of sanction payments would not be meaningful. The contested court decision of November 11, 2020, was overturned due to a violation of § 123 SGG. Referral of the case back to the SG was not considered. The decision of the SG does not suffer from any other defect that would lead to its annulment and referral. The plaintiff's appeal was unsuccessful. The lawsuit for an order to conduct a nursing assessment by independent experts is inadmissible. The lawsuit to establish that no decision was made regarding his request for a higher classification is also inadmissible. The present text concerns the admissibility of a declaratory judgment action and an inaction lawsuit in a legal proceeding. It is stated that the mere inaction of the defendant does not constitute a specific legal relationship and therefore does not justify a declaratory judgment action. Instead, the plaintiff can assert his claim for a decision on his request for a higher classification through an inaction lawsuit. It is also noted that the inaction lawsuit, formulated as a suit for declaratory judgment, is not admissible as the defendant has already made a substantive decision on the request for a higher classification. It is emphasized that the possibility for the claimant to enforce his claim for a decision on an application through an inaction lawsuit must remain available to the seeker of justice until an (appealable) administrative decision actually exists. In the present [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Textilwirtschaft is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of TextilWirtschaft Online is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is about a legal dispute regarding the classification of an accident as a work-related accident. A self-employed roofer was hired by a company to work on a demolition project. While working, he fell through the roof and suffered serious injuries. The accident insurance denied recognition as a work-related accident because the roofer was self-employed. However, the plaintiff argued that he was integrated as an employee. The social court dismissed the lawsuit, but the regional social court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and demanded the recognition of the accident as a work-related accident. [Extracted from the article]

The article provides an overview of considerations and strategies for paying freelance musicians. Topics include establishing fair fee rates when allocating public cultural funding with potential age discrimination; and discussion on how to generate socially acceptable and living wage for professionally trained musicians, including the consideration of operating costs, investment surcharge, and fee recommendations.

Copyright of NovaCura is the property of Hogrefe AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Allgemeine BäckerZeitung is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Lebensmittel Zeitung is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of NovaCura is the property of Hogrefe AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Changement is the property of Solutions by HANDELSBLATT MEDIA GROUP GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of NovaCura is the property of Hogrefe AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of TextilWirtschaft Online is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of HORIZONT is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of HORIZONT is the property of dfv Mediengruppe and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of NovaCura is the property of Hogrefe AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Werben und Verkaufen is the property of Verlag Werben & Verkaufen GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)