Unfallversicherung.

The article "Accident Insurance" deals with a legal dispute regarding the recognition of health disorders as a result of a work accident. The plaintiff injured his knee in an accident and, according to an expert opinion from the psychiatric clinic, suffers from an anxiety disorder. However, the defendant only recognizes a slight instability of the knee joint as a result of the accident. Another expert opinion concludes that the impairment of the gait is not due to knee instability, but rather to spastic tetraparesis. The social court dismisses the lawsuit as a qualifying reduction in earning capacity could not be proven. The plaintiff aims to have further accident consequences determined, particularly a phobic disorder, with his appeal. The social court dismissed the lawsuit and determined that there are no further health impairments due to the accident. An expert opinion confirms that the plaintiff suffers from various physical impairments, but there is no long-lasting or profound psychological disorder due to the accident. The plaintiff is not entitled to receive an injury pension or have further accident consequences determined. The plaintiff cannot sufficiently attribute his phobic anxiety disorder to the accident, as its existence is not fully proven. Although the accident was generally capable of causing acute fright and an adjustment disorder, it did not lead to a specific trauma disorder or other psychosomatic disorders. Instead, the plaintiff has a dissociative movement disorder of the legs and arms, which is due to early childhood brain damage and further experiences of disappointment. Therefore, there is no scientific connection between the accident and the dissociative disorder. The plaintiff is also not entitled to receive an injury pension, as the accident-related reduction in earning capacity no longer reaches the qualifying degree of 20%. The present text passage contains information on the assessment of the degree of disability (MdE) in relation to accident consequences. It is emphasized that in the assessment, it is not the health damage itself, but the associated loss of function under various aspects that is decisive. Medical opinions play an important role in estimating the MdE, but they are not binding. It is also pointed out that in assessing the MdE, general empirical principles and the individual circumstances of the specific case must be taken into account. With regard to the specific case, it is determined that the consequences of the accident on the left knee joint cannot lead to an MdE of 20%, as the main cause of the plaintiff's movement disorder is spastic tetraparesis. A motion to question an expert witness was rejected, as the plaintiff could not demonstrate a relevant need for clarification. [Extracted from the article]