|
|
 |
|
|
Medical board (414,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Medical board
Total judgments found: 39
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5159
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to end her service on the grounds of invalidity and to deduct from her invalidity allowance the contributions to the pension scheme.
Consideration 10
Extract:
«S’agissant du contrôle que peut exercer le Tribunal à l’égard d’une décision prise par une commission d’invalidité quant à l’origine professionnelle ou non d’une maladie, le Tribunal rappelle que les appréciations d’ordre médical échappent à sa compétence (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4905, au considérant 13). Toutefois, il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante que, si le Tribunal n’a pas qualité pour substituer sa propre appréciation à celle formulée par une commission statuant en matière médicale, telle une commission d’invalidité, il est en revanche pleinement compétent pour contrôler la régularité de la procédure suivie et pour examiner si l’avis rendu par cette commission est entaché d’erreur matérielle ou de contradiction, si celui-ci a négligé des faits essentiels ou s’il a tiré du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées (voir notamment les jugements 4904, au considérant 2, 4709, au considérant 4, 4585, au considérant 10, 4473, au considérant 13, 4237, au considérant 5, 3994, au considérant 5, 2996, au considérant 11, 2361, au considérant 9, et 1284, au considérant 4). Mais, notamment dans le jugement 4904, le Tribunal avait été mis en possession du dossier médical constitué par la commission d’invalidité et le fonctionnaire informé de la teneur des éléments d’ordre médical le concernant, ce qui, à ce jour, ne semble toujours pas être le cas en l’espèce.»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709, 4904, 4905
Keywords:
invalidity; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5049
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the IAEA’s decision to impose a 30 per cent cap on her claims for the reimbursement of medical expenses submitted under Appendix D to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; medical board; medical expenses; service-incurred;
Judgment 5033
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante demande l’annulation de la décision de réunir une commission d’invalidité pour statuer sur sa situation, ainsi que de celle de rejeter sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4904
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to recognise that he was suffering from disability.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ccording to [the Tribunal's] case law, while it may not replace the medical findings of a body such as an invalidity board with its own assessment, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the board’s opinion shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4709, consideration 4, 4585, consideration 10, 4473, consideration 13, 4237, consideration 5, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709
Keywords:
invalidity; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The “supplementary report” drawn up in response to [the] request on 15 March 2021 shows that this document was drafted by the rapporteur doctor alone. However, this “supplementary report” was not a medical opinion for the purposes of AC 14. It merely recalled the findings of the certificates drawn up by Drs G. and R., as well as those of the report of the panel of doctors, and provided legal clarifications so as to better inform the JARDB as to the difference between “incapacity for work” within the meaning of paragraph 17 of AC 14 and Annex 2 thereto and “deterioration of physical or mental health” within the meaning of paragraph 19 of AC 14 and Annex 3 thereto. This document therefore merely summarised some evidence in the file and explained the relevant legal concepts, and did not alter the panel’s medical assessment itself. There was therefore no breach of the principle of collegiality of the panel of doctors.
Keywords:
medical board; medical opinion;
Judgment 4807
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the report of the Medical Committee which extended her sick leave until 31 May 2016 and concluded that she was not suffering from invalidity.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4763
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illnesses be recognized as service-incurred.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ny pleas concerning the question of whether [the complainant’s] medical condition was service-incurred relating to the 12 June decision are premature, since, in the end, the Director-General did not decide on this matter but decided to refer it to a medical board.
The 12 June 2020 decision, even though taken after an internal appeal process, refers the case to a medical board and is only a step in the process, not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see, generally, Judgment 4636, considerations 4 and 5). Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4636
Keywords:
medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1752, consideration 6, the Compensation Committee “is just an advisory body, not a court of law” and that the safeguards offered by the rules governing its workings should be assessed in the light of the requirements applicable to such a body.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752
Keywords:
advisory body; medical board;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the opinion of medical experts or a of committee dealing with medical cases, such as a compensation committee, with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the opinion delivered by the committee in question shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4473, consideration 13, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4473
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4636
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension of his sick leave following the expiry of his maximum period of sick leave and the failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity which was attributable to the performance of official duties.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]he EPO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It submits that the complaint is premature and therefore irreceivable, because the medical procedure for determining whether a member of staff meets the definition of invalidity involves a series of steps and findings which lead to a final decision; such steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision; they may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. […]
What the complainant identifies as the impugned decision in this case was merely a “step in a process”, which may simply have the appearance of a decision (see, for example, Judgment 3860, consideration 6). It cannot be considered as a final decision for the purposes of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, because it was taken precisely in order for the Medical Committee to obtain additional information before making a determination as to whether the complainant was suffering from invalidity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860
Keywords:
invalidity; medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4635
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal in which he requested that an expert in occupational diseases be consulted.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the decision contested by the complainant was not an act adversely affecting him and therefore could not be challenged. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable.
[T]he refusal to grant the complainant’s request for an expert to be consulted had neither the aim nor the effect of ending the procedure he had initiated with a view to obtaining recognition that his invalidity was caused by an occupational disease. The refusal only meant that the request in question would be submitted to the Medical Committee for consideration, instead of being regarded as having to be granted automatically, as the complainant contended. Apart from the fact that it in no way prejudiced the eventual outcome of the request, this decision was merely a step in the process of reaching a final decision on the question of whether the invalidity was to be recognised as service incurred.
However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, when a decision is thus taken in the procedure leading to a final administrative decision, it must be regarded merely as a preparatory step and is not therefore challengeable in itself, although it may be challenged in the context of an appeal directed against that final decision (see, for example, Judgments 3433, consideration 9, and 2366, consideration 16, or, specifically in respect of decisions taken, as in this case, in proceedings of a medical nature, Judgments 3893, consideration 8, or 3712, consideration 3).
Lastly, while it must be noted that from the start of the dispute the EPO has never argued that the complainant’s claims are irreceivable, that does not prevent such a finding in the present judgment. It is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, in particular, Judgments 3648, consideration 5, 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, or 2097, consideration 24) and, while plainly it will not do so unless the submissions make such irreceivability clear, that is the situation here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2366, 2567, 3139, 3433, 3648, 3712, 3893
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; medical board; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4585
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision made concerning the extent of his service-incurred disability, the date until which he should be paid compensation for disability, and the payment of the fees of the medical experts who examined his case.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has reviewed the ABCC’s report and the Medical Board’s reports. The Tribunal recalls its consistent precedent that it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to decide whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 5, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4237
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; medical board; medical opinion;
Judgment 4464
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s refusal to recognise the illness from which he states he suffers as service-incurred.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the presence of this fourth medical practitioner at the meeting is sufficient to establish a breach of Article 38 of Annex 3 to the Staff Rules. Article 38 makes clear that the medical board convened to decide on the state of health of a member of staff is to consist of three medical practitioners appointed in the manner specified therein. This article does not in itself prevent other medical practitioners from being interviewed by the medical board, for example as experts, as long as it is clear from the procedure followed before the board that they were never considered, and could never have been objectively considered by the staff member concerned, to be members of the board.
Keywords:
medical board;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; medical board; service-incurred;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal reiterates that according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment, but it is required to say whether there was due process (see, for example, Judgment 3994, consideration 5). It must therefore satisfy itself that a medical board was properly constituted and followed due process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994
Keywords:
medical board; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
In the light of all these circumstances, the Tribunal finds the board’s composition and functioning were tainted by a substantial flaw owing to the role played by a medical practitioner who was not a member.
This flaw is a sufficient basis to find not only that the medical board’s conclusions in the report of 22 July 2019 are invalid, but also that the Director-General’s final decision of 16 January 2020 must be set aside.
Keywords:
medical board; medical opinion; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4162
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final decision on her claim for compensation for a service-incurred injury or illness.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant [...] asserts that the Medical Board members were unqualified. This assertion is without merit. The members were specifically selected because of their qualifications in their areas of expertise and, indeed, the complainant selected one of the Medical Board members herself. The complainant’s assertion is, in effect, grounded on her disagreement with the content of the Medical Board’s report and is rejected.
Keywords:
medical board;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; service-incurred;
Judgment 4117
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the finding that his invalidity was not caused by an occupational disease.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; invalidity; medical board; service-incurred;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It does not matter, for present purposes, whether the [Medical] Committee is bound to accept the views of the expert. But what, as an absolute minimum, the Committee must do is give earnest and substantial consideration to the views of the expert or experts it has consulted, and it can reject their views only for cogent and compelling reasons.
Keywords:
expert inquiry; medical board;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Before proceeding to consider the merits of the complaint, one further preliminary issue concerning receivability should be mentioned. There is one judgment of the Tribunal, Judgment 2787, which, in consideration 3, draws a distinction between procedural and medical aspects of a Medical Committee’s opinion and affirms that, by implication and because of Articles 107(1) and (2) and 109(3) of the Service Regulations as applicable at the material time, the latter (the medical aspects) could be challenged before the Tribunal without the prior filing of an internal appeal to the Appeals Committee. Even if the distinction created by this judgment should continue to be applied by the Tribunal (which may be doubted), there is no bright line between an opinion of a Medical Committee on procedural aspects and an opinion on medical aspects. The present case illustrates that an opinion of the Medical Committee may have both procedural and medical characteristics. In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decisions of 7 January and 13 February 2013 were decisions “taken after consultation of the Medical Committee” for the purposes of Articles 109(3)(a) and 110(2)(a) of the Service Regulations. Accordingly, the complainant was entitled to bring his complaint directly to the Tribunal [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2787
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; medical board; medical grounds; medical opinion;
Judgment 4090
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the processing of his application for a disability benefit and the calculation of his sick leave entitlements.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he final constitution of the Board [was delayed] for almost four months. This was an unreasonably long period and delayed the resolution of the complainant’s application, which was ultimately successful, for a disability benefit. While the complainant has not discharged the burden of proving retaliation, bias and prejudice, the IAEA is liable for the consequences of this delay involving, as it does, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant, a ground relied on by the complainant in his fifth argument (see Judgment 2936, consideration 19). The IAEA, through its officers, was obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the complainant’s request for review of the decision to refuse him a disability benefit was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If, as happened, an impasse about who should be the Chair arose between a member of the Board nominated by the staff member and a temporary member [...] of the Board nominated by the Administration who also had the responsibility to nominate another member as his own replacement, then steps should have been taken with great expedition to nominate the member to replace him.
Keywords:
breach; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; disability benefit; duty of care; medical board; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3450
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; injury; medical board;
Judgment 3300
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint filed against the decision not to consider the complainant's disability as resulting from an occupational disease.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 89(3), 89(4) and 90(1) of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; medical opinion; order; pension; procedural flaw; service-incurred; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3158
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he conditions listed in the explanatory note of 20 October 2000 involve an interpretation of both 'generally accepted medical treatment' and 'proven therapeutic effects', in order to determine what constitutes 'medicines' for the purpose of Article 20(b)(2) of the [Collective Insurance Contract]. The Tribunal considers that such an interpretation implies a medical opinion. Accordingly, the questions of whether the products prescribed for the use of the complainant are 'medicines' for the purpose of the insurance policy and whether the complainant is entitled to be reimbursed under the policy consistent with his rights under Article 83 of the Service Regulations, require a medical opinion. As a result, these questions have to be referred to the Medical Committee in accordance with Article 90(1), paragraph 2 [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 83 and 90 of Service Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; health insurance; interpretation; medical board; medical expenses; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3056
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; invalidity; medical board;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
On the merits, attention must be drawn to the fact that, while the Tribunal may not replace the medical findings of a body such as an invalidity board with its own assessment, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the board’s opinion shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 1284, under 4, or 2361, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; medical board; service-incurred;
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; exception; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; official; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
