ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Medical board (414,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Medical board
Total judgments found: 26

1, 2 | next >

  • 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:

    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:

    invalidity; medical board; service-incurred;

    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;

    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;



  • 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; 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; 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:

    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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; insurance; insurance benefit; interpretation; medical board; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2996


    110th Session, 2011
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15 and 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; exception; international civil servant; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard; same;



  • Judgment 2537


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    One of the two members of the Medical Committee convened to examine the complainant's work capacity attached a handwritten statement to the report that an occupational origin of the invalidity could not be excluded. The Tribunal rules that "it was certainly not appropriate for members of the Office's Administration - faced with a clearly contradictory medical report - to approach the second expert in order to persuade him to withdraw his diverging opinion."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; discontinuance; independence; invalidity; medical board; medical opinion; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 2458


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 7

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
    The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189

    Keywords:

    application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2361


    97th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal, in keeping with consistent precedent, may not replace the findings of medical boards with its own. But it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and whether the reports used as a basis for administrative decisions show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence (see Judgment 1284, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284

    Keywords:

    case law; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; decision; disregard of essential fact; iloat; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedure; report; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2160


    93rd Session, 2002
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Clearly, most of the relief claimed is not within the power of the Tribunal to grant at this stage for it depends upon a finding by a competent body (a medical board) that the complainant in fact suffers from the psychological condition mentioned and a finding by another competent body (a compensation board) that such condition is service-related. Equally clearly, however, she is entirely within her rights to demand that such bodies be constituted without delay."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; illness; medical board; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right;



  • Judgment 2146


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    The Invalidity Committee was constituted of two doctors respectively appointed by the organization and the complainant and of a third member chosen by mutual agreement between the first two doctors. The doctor appointed by the complainant resigned. He appointed another but challenges the fact that the third member was not rechosen. "It is clear [...] that if a member is replaced, the appointment should be by the same person or persons who originally appointed the member who has left. The complainant is wrong to liken the Invalidity Committee to an arbitral body that must always have representation from each side and must always be presided by someone chosen by the parties' representatives. The Invalidity Committee is a statutory body and once regularly constituted, it has the powers vested in it by the rules. The appointments to it do not become invalid simply by reason of the departure of a member."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; consequence; disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; pension entitlements; resignation;



  • Judgment 2145


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 to 8

    Extract:

    "In the Organisation's view, since the payments it was making to the complainant were entirely voluntary, a matter of grace and favour on its part, it was quite at liberty to suspend such payments when the complainant failed to fulfil her obligation to submit to the [...] medical examination [required by the Invalidity Committee]. [It] is wrong. The Invalidity Committee's report [...] was categorical in stating that the complainant must be regarded as not fit for work. That means that she was unable to perform her duties and at a minimum she was entitled to receive the emoluments provided for in Article 62(7) unless and until the Invalidity Committee made a further finding putting an end to her sick leave, extending it, or placing her on permanent disability. But, without the authorisation of the Invalidity Committee, the [Organisation] had no right by its own unilateral action to suspend the payments to which she was entitled by law. [...] There can be no doubt that the [complainant] has a clear obligation to assist the Invalidity Committee and to present herself as and when reasonably required to do so for examination or treatment. If she fails to do so, that might constitute grounds for the Invalidity Committee to declare her sick leave at an end or it might form the basis of disciplinary action. [However, the Organisation] cannot take the law into its own hands without regard for the complainant's rights or its own obligations under the Service Regulations. [...] The highhanded actions of the [Organisation] in cutting the complainant's payments are both unjustified and illegal. The impugned decision must be rescinded."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 62 (7) OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; disability benefit; disciplinary procedure; incapacity; invalidity; medical board; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; payment; pension entitlements; refusal; right; sick leave; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2063


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    After the complainant underwent surgery, the insurance brokers refused to cover his convalescence in a home. "In order to assess any physical injury suffered by the complainant, it is necessary to ascertain the later consequences for his health of the refusal to meet the costs of his admission to a convalescent home, and the fact that he did not as a result stay in such a home. These are purely medical matters which [...] need to be referred to the Invalidity Committee".

    Keywords:

    claim; competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; illness; insurance benefit; medical board; receivability of the complaint; refund; refusal; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2047


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The complainant adopts the position taken by the Appeals Committee to the effect that the [organisation] was obligated to appoint its own medical officer for the purposes of dealing with her claim and was not entitled to rely on the medical adviser appointed by [the insurance company] Van Breda for that purpose. For the Tribunal to so hold would amount to a denial of the organisation's right to appoint the medical officer of its choice. The fact that it selects and relies on the same medical adviser as the one appointed by the insurer, whom it has engaged to carry out its obligations to provide health coverage to its staff, is not in the least surprising. Such appointment cannot have any adverse effect upon the complainant who retains the right given by Article 90 [of the Service Regulations] to have any contested issue relating to medical matters determined by the Invalidity Committee."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 90 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; insurance; invalidity; medical board; medical consultant; medical opinion; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 1752


    85th Session, 1998
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[The Tribunal] may not replace qualified medical opinion with its own, though it may review the procedure and say whether the doctors' findings show any factual mistake or inconsistency, or overlook an essential fact, or draw a plainly wrong conclusion from the evidence."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; disregard of essential fact; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedure;



  • Judgment 1516


    81st Session, 1996
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The complainant wants the Tribunal to 'declare that UNESCO has failed to act and itself make the final determination [regarding the degree of her invalidity] that the organization has for years been refusing' her. Having put up with years of dilatoriness and prevarication,she is understandably anxious to have her entitlements speedily determined. Being unable, however, to rule on the medical aspects of her case, the Tribunal has no choice but to send the case back to the organization for completion of the process of review in keeping with the rules."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; expert inquiry; iloat statute; invalidity; judicial review; medical board; medical examination; medical opinion; rate;



  • Judgment 1373


    77th Session, 1994
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The Medical Board based its findings on the lack of "conclusive" evidence. "But that was not the standard of proof it was required to apply." Referring to Judgments 528 and 641, the Tribunal holds that what is required is no more "than a balance of probability in favour of what the complainant is alleging.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 528, 641

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; evidence; medical board; presumption;



  • Judgment 1284


    75th Session, 1993
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Precedent has it [...] that the Tribunal may not replace the Board's assessment of medical questions with its own. But it goes further than that: the Tribunal does have full competence to say whether there was due process and whether the medical findings show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence."

    Keywords:

    case law; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; procedure; report;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant's main claim - that his condition be declared attributable to the performance of official duties - fails because the Tribunal may not substitute its own assessment of the case for the Medical Board's."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; discretion; illness; judicial review; medical board; report; service-incurred;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top