|
|
 |
|
|
Medical examination (418,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Medical examination
Total judgments found: 44
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4728
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Medical Committee’s decision to further extend his sick leave until 31 March 2015 and its failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The short answer to both complaints is that neither concerns an administrative decision of the type which can be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal. The decisions of the Medical Committee to extend the complainant’s sick leave were to facilitate the further investigation and consideration of the complainant’s medical condition, at least in the eyes of the majority, as part of the process of determining whether he was disabled and entitled to an invalidity benefit. They were both “steps in the process” directed towards the making of the final decision about the complainant’s entitlement (see, for example, Judgment 3893, consideration 8). Therefore, the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress, as is required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted; medical examination; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical examination; service-incurred; sick leave; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4248
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3446.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; invalidity; medical examination; professional accident;
Judgment 4243
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant criticizes first of all the consultations which took place [with the Medical Adviser]. But WIPO rightly invokes the guidelines applicable within the United Nations system and the fact that the certification of sick leave does not systematically involve an auscultation.
Keywords:
medical examination;
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 3986
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3887.
Consideration 8
Extract:
If the complainant refuses to undergo the medical examination as required and scheduled by the Disciplinary Committee, the medical assessment will be carried out by a medical expert in psychiatry only on the basis of documents, as the Tribunal decided in similar circumstances (see Judgment 3972, under 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972
Keywords:
medical examination;
Judgment 3617
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation; medical examination;
Judgment 3570
121st Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to end his service on grounds of invalidity and requests his reinstatement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical examination; reinstatement;
Judgment 3538
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their April 2007 payslip showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is often the case that a court will be required to adjudicate on an issue where the opinion of an expert is an essential element in determining the outcome. Obvious examples would be the cause of illness and the prognosis of a staff member claiming some type of sickness benefit or sickness leave. Expert medical opinions would ordinarily underpin a court’s determination of whether an entitlement to the benefit or leave was established. It would be in rare cases indeed that a court would determine such issues on the basis of arguments advanced by non-experts in the field in question, however intelligent or knowledgeable they may be in other fields of human endeavour.
Keywords:
administrative decision; medical examination; medical opinion;
Judgment 3246
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant refused to undergo a new medical examination that the Tribunal had ordered. The Tribunal considered that it could not rule on the complaint which is thus dismissed.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant wilfully refused to undergo the specialised medical examination ordered in Judgment 3145, it is not in a position to rule on her complaint, which must therefore be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3145
Keywords:
expert inquiry; medical examination; refusal;
Judgment 3111
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant contends, by reference to Judgment 620, under considerations 2 and 4, that even if her illness cannot be attributed to her working conditions, the Tribunal may award limited damages. In Judgment 620, the defendant organisation had failed to conduct regular medical examinations as required by its rules. The Tribunal held that that failure had deprived the complainant of "an opportunity to take precautions against [his] illness" even though it was not established that regular medical examinations would have prevented it. There is nothing in the present case to suggest that the actions or inactions of WHO deprived the complainant of an opportunity to take precautions against contracting tuberculosis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 620
Keywords:
damages; medical examination; service-incurred;
Judgment 2895
108th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19 and 20
Extract:
The complainant challenged WHO's decision to "waive" in her case the medical examination on separation provided for in Staff Rule 1085. The Tribunal held that the exit medical examination is a mandatory part of the separation protocol. It awarded the complainant moral damages.
"Staff Rule 1085 reads:
"A staff member shall be examined immediately prior to his departure by the Staff Physician or by a physician designated by the Organization. If a staff member fails to undergo this medical examination within a reasonable time limit fixed by the Organization, then claims against the Organization arising out of illness or injury which allegedly occurred before the effective date of separation shall not be entertained; furthermore, the effective date of separation shall not be affected."
"The wording of the above provision makes it clear that a medical examination is mandatory. It follows from the mandatory nature of the medical examination on separation, coupled with the fact that it engages the interests of both parties and not just those of the Organization, that WHO could not unilaterally decide that in the circumstances the requirement of Staff Rule 1085 had been fulfilled. Although that rule contemplates the situation where a staff member fails to undergo the exit medical examination, it also sets out the potentially adverse consequence that the lack of such an examination may have for the staff member in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1085
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The Organization's assertion that the complainant did not specifically request to have an exit medical examination is correct. However, the exit medical examination requirement is not contingent on a staff member requesting to have the examination; it is a mandatory part of the separation protocol."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that WHO's unilateral decision to "waive" the exit medical examination constitutes a violation of Staff Rule 1085. It also finds that, although there is no evidence that the decision was motivated by malice, the manner in which the Organization dealt with this issue was an affront to the complainant's dignity."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects WHO's reliance on its letter [...] as being a communication of a decision that the complainant would not need to have an exit medical examination. There is no basis upon which it could be inferred from the statement «the administrative formalities have been completed» that the mandatory exit medical examination provided for in the Staff Rules was being unilaterally waived. Given that an exit medical examination is mandatory and has potentially significant legal consequences for both parties, it would be expected that a deviation from the norm would be specifically communicated."
Keywords:
duty to inform; medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2657
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post but the Tribunal considers that persons who have applied for a post in an international organisation and who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. The complainant asks that the Organisation be ordered to waive its immunity to enable him to bring proceedings before a German court. "[T]he Tribunal [recalls that it] has no authority to order the EPO to waive its immunity (see Judgment 933, under 6). It notes, however, that the present judgment creates a legal vacuum and considers it highly desirable that the Organisation should seek a solution affording the complainant access to a court, either by waiving its immunity or by submitting the dispute to arbitration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 933
Keywords:
appointment; arbitration; candidate; claim; competence of tribunal; condition; grounds; handicapped person; judgment of the tribunal; medical examination; medical fitness; municipal court; open competition; organisation; post; refusal; safeguard; waiver of immunity;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 2533
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant suffered a workplace injury at the Organization premises. The results of this seemingly minor accident were catastrophic and the complainant is now permanently and totally disabled and suffers from a rare illness, which has extended up both of the complainant's legs and requires him to use a wheelchair.
"[G]iven the possibly progressive nature of [the illness], the condition may continue to deteriorate seriously. [...] the Tribunal asserts unequivocally that the defendant's obligation to pay the complainant reasonable compensation for the results of his workplace injury is a continuing one and is not affected or diminished by the terms of an insurance policy to which the complainant is not a party."
Keywords:
consequence; disability benefit; handicapped person; health insurance; illness; insurance; invalidity; maximum limit; medical examination; organisation's duties; professional accident; provision; service-incurred;
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:
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 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1975
89th Session, 2000
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a security guard, was dismissed for committing a fault: he had disactivated an alarm button to prevent it from setting off inadvertently and had forgotten to tell his colleagues. "The oversight by the Personnel Department, which omitted to carry out the statutory medical examination [on cessation of service], does not affect the lawfulness of the impugned decision."
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; due process; effect; medical examination; misconduct; negligence; termination of employment;
Judgment 1964
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; locus standi; medical examination; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 1901
88th Session, 2000
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The organization refused the complainant both an unsuitability and an invalidity pension. It explains that it couldn't arrange for a final medical examination at the time of the complainant's dismissal because he was in prison. "The Tribunal cannot accept that argument. Under Article R II 4.18 of the Staff Regulations, a medical examination is compulsory when a contract is terminated, for whatever reason. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, [the organization] should have been at particular pains to comply with that rule. In the absence of such an examination the pension fund should have determined whether, upon termination of service, the complainant was to be treated as unfit for work because of a deterioration in his physical or mental health which occurred while he was employed by [the organization]. The administrator of the Pension Fund was, therefore, wrong [...] when he refused to consider the complainant's entitlement to a pension for unsuitability." The case was sent back to the Pension Fund.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.18 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF CERN
Keywords:
cern pension fund; disability benefit; due process; incapacity; invalidity; medical examination; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; service-incurred; termination of employment;
Judgment 1894
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."
Keywords:
evidence; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical expenses; staff member's duties; tribunal;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
