|
|
 |
|
|
Medical opinion (417,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Medical opinion
Total judgments found: 50
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5145
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim that his injury was service-incurred.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t is appropriate to recall the role of the Tribunal in reviewing decisions concerning medical issues, which is not limited to procedural defects. The Tribunal does have full competence to say whether the medical findings show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence (see Judgment 1752, consideration 9). The limit of this review is that, being scientifically based and scientifically relevant, the medical bodies’ evaluations should be accepted by the Tribunal unless they are considered clearly unreliable according to current scientific knowledge (see Judgment 2580, consideration 6). The Tribunal will not substitute its own determination for the medical findings upon which that decision was based and can annul decisions based on medical findings if they are affected by misuse of authority, error of law or of fact, or discernible arbitrariness (see Judgment 3745, consideration 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752, 2580, 3745
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; service-incurred;
Judgment 5131
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to place him on special leave with full pay and subsequently on sick leave pending a reassessment of his state of health.
Consideration 3
Extract:
“An organisation can reasonably rely on medical opinions which, on their face, are balanced and from an expert in the relevant field of medicine. If there are conflicting medical opinions the organisation is entitled to act on one of them if they satisfy the criterion just referred to and is not bound to act on medical advice furnished by the staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1180, consideration 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1180
Keywords:
medical certificate; medical opinion;
Judgment 5110
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who suffers from service-incurred injuries, contests the decision to deny full reimbursement for her laboratory test expenses.
Consideration 9
Extract:
“In a [medical] case such as this, the Tribunal will not substitute its own views for the medical opinions on which the Administration’s decision is based. The Tribunal is, however, fully competent to assess whether the required procedure was correctly followed and to determine whether the challenged decision was unlawful, among other things, because it contained any substantive error or inconsistency, overlooked essential facts or drew erroneous conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4831, consideration 4, 3994, consideration 5, and 3689, consideration 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3689, 3994, 4831
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion;
Judgment 5098
141st Session, 2026
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-recognition of her illness as occupational.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“Established precedent has it that where, like in the present case, a complaint involves a medical matter, the Tribunal “may not replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say 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, in particular, Judgments 4761, consideration 2, 4699, consideration 6, 4694, consideration 11, 4464, consideration 7, 3994, consideration 5, and 3361, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699, 4761
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
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.
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 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Board carefully analysed, in detail and over several pages, the evidence concerning the factual question of whether there had been notification to the complainant. It observed, correctly, that the burden of proof that notification had been given fell on the person who sent the document, in this case the Organization, citing Judgment 3871, consideration 9. Its analysis and conclusion that the Organization had not proved that notification had been given is unexceptionable and certainly does not reveal a manifest error. In the impugned decision of 23 August 2021, the Director General accepted the pivotal significance of the factual question about notification. […] [The Director General] challenged the reasoning of the Appeal Board. But, in the face of that reasoning, his analysis is unpersuasive.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; executive head; medical opinion; notification;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied the complainant suffered a moral injury as a result of being denied the right of review of the medical assessment leading directly to the termination of his employment, effective 1 October 2018. He is entitled to moral damages which are assessed in the sum of 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; medical opinion; moral damages; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; mandatory time limit; medical opinion; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4831
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent precedent, contained, for example, in consideration 8 of Judgment 3361, states that the Tribunal cannot substitute its own views for the medical opinions on which an administrative decision, such as the present one, is based. The Tribunal is, however, fully competent to assess whether the procedure that has been followed was correctly carried out, especially as regards respect for the adversarial principle or the right to be heard, and to examine whether the reports used as the basis for that administrative decision contain any substantive error or inconsistency, overlook essential facts or draw erroneous conclusions from the evidence (see also Judgments 3994, consideration 5, 3689, consideration 3, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2361, 3361, 3689, 3994
Keywords:
discretion; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
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.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the Medical Committee’s opinion is not an administrative decision of the type that can be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process of reaching the final decision of the Administration. In Judgment 4118, consideration 2, the Tribunal clarified the principle regarding a complaint directed against the Medical Committee’s report:
“With respect to the claims directed against the ‘decision’ of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007, the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such, cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office of 12 July 2007. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007.”
[…] [I]n the instant case, the only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision endorsing the Medical Committee’s opinion, contained in the 23 June 2014 letter from the Head of Department, Human Resources […] Expert Services, and not the Medical Committee’s opinion of 2 June 2014 or its letter of 11 June 2014, which the complainant erroneously considers to be the decision to be impugned.
Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118
Keywords:
administrative decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4761
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to recognise that the illness from which he claims to suffer is service-induced.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Since this involves a medical matter, the Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say 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, in particular, Judgments 4699, consideration 6, 4694, consideration 11, 4464, consideration 7, 3994, consideration 5, and 3361, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699
Keywords:
judicial review; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t is not for the Tribunal, in medical matters, to replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment (see, in particular, Judgments 4473, consideration 13, 4464, consideration 7, and 3361, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 4464, 4473
Keywords:
medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 4580, consideration 19, the Tribunal recalled that, when decisions have been taken on the basis of expert evidence, it is not the Tribunal’s role to substitute its assessment for that of an expert, unless that assessment is affected by a blatant error (see also Judgments 4464, consideration 7, 4277, consideration 20, and 4278, consideration 16). However, far from establishing the existence of a blatant error, the arguments set up by the complainant against the Organisation’s medical evidence amount instead to a request for the Tribunal to substitute its assessment for that of the Organisation in relation to a medical matter.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4277, 4278, 4464, 4580
Keywords:
expert inquiry; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
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 4473
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t should be pointed out that, in Judgment 3994, the Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. In that judgment, the Tribunal clarifies that, although it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine the medical reports on which an administrative decision is based, its role concerns situations in which a material mistake or inconsistency, a failure to consider some essential fact or a plain misreading of the evidence can be demonstrated. Moreover, in consideration 6, the Tribunal states:
“The complainant has produced no evidence in support of her claims that challenges either the lawfulness of the procedure followed during that expert assessment or the soundness of the expert’s conclusions.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994
Keywords:
medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
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:
[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 4413
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986, and the EPO filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3887, as clarified by Judgment 3986.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The application for interpretation filed by the EPO, as based on the impossibility to execute Judgments 3887 and 3986, raises a threshold issue. The Tribunal finds that the two facts reported above under consideration 7 and proven by the EPO, have rendered impossible the complete execution of the two judgments. In the unusual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will make no further orders for the execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986. Firstly, forcing Mr B. to undergo a medical examination would impair his fundamental rights to dignity and health. Secondly, the refusal of psychiatric experts to carry out an examination only on the basis of documents was an objective obstacle that made it impossible to fully execute the judgments. Neither of these obstacles can be attributed to the EPO. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the EPO could do nothing more to execute the judgments, and Mr B.’s application for execution must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887, 3986
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment; medical opinion;
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.
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 3994
126th Session, 2018
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges CERN’s refusal to recognise the illness from which she says she suffers as occupational.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say 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 1284, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; medical examination; medical opinion;
Judgment 3962
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to downgrade her, reassign her to another position and place her on an additional period of probation.
Considerations 11 and 15
Extract:
Article 52 of the Service Regulations dealt with incompetence. It provided: “(1) Subject to Article 23 of the Convention, a permanent employee who proves incompetent in the performance of his duties may be dismissed.
The appointing authority may, however, offer to classify the employee concerned in a lower grade and to assign him to a post corresponding to this new grade. [...]"
[...]
A third and related issue arising from the language of Article 52(1) is that once this assessment is undertaken by or on behalf of the President, an offer should have been made to the complainant identifying the new lower grade and the post to which she might be assigned. It was not. Reasonably clearly this step of making an offer is intended to ensure that a permanent employee proven to be incompetent in the position she or he then held, has the opportunity of discussing with the EPO what work she or he might do within the EPO into the future. In the ordinary course, one would expect that a decision to offer to classify the permanent employee in a lower grade and assign her or him to a new post would be significantly more attractive to the staff member concerned, found to be incompetent, than a decision to dismiss. Nonetheless important considerations may arise for the affected staff member including alterations to remuneration and likely career paths within the EPO. Indeed it is not possible to entirely discount, once an offer was made, negotiations or at least discussions taking place between the affected staff member and the EPO about what the EPO proposed. In a case such as the present where mental health issues were involved, some form of agreed medical assessment might also be appropriate to gauge competency given that the underlying aim of this process is to place the affected permanent employee in a position where she or he is competent and contributing to the overall work of the EPO.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 52 of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; downgrading; medical opinion;
Judgment 3949
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claims for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is not the Tribunal’s role, in a case such as the present, to adjudicate on the merits of a claim for compensation on medical grounds in the absence of a consideration of the question by a body that has been established for that purpose, if any, within an organisation (such as the ABCC) and in the absence of considered medical opinions addressing the question (see generally Judgment 3538, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; medical opinion;
Judgment 3854
124th Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not award him compensation for a service-incurred disability.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Diagnosis based on a patient’s account of past events is entirely orthodox and particularly so if the patient’s account of past events is not challenged.
Keywords:
medical opinion;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
