Chowaniec Czesław, Jabłoński Christian, Kobek Mariusz, Chowaniec Małgorzata
Katedra i Zakład Medycyny Sadowej SAM w Katowicach.
Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2005 Oct-Dec;55(4):261-3.
After amending the rules obligatory for decision making about the incapacity to work and social insurance in district courts observed in the practice of the Department of Forensic Medicine Medical University of Silesia, Katowice. Our Department is usually appointed for a second opinion in legal pension proceedings. In the first place courts appoint physicians being experts in particular fields of clinical medicine. Irrespective of all differences in the accepted conclusion a comparative analysis of medico-legal opinions given by forensic medicine specialists or groups of experts from the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, showed flaws in the way opinions were handed down by individual experts relating to the lack of the state of general health estimation in people contesting for pensions as well as ignorance of the obligatory rules and procedures when deciding about incapacity to work in pension proceedings. It is known that physicians appointed by the court establish only whether the examined person can work or not, but do not give any information about the character of incapacity and do not consider the possibility of therapeutic rehabilitation within the extent of the pension prevention by the Social Insurance Department nor a chance to change ones profession due to the incapacity to work in the present occupation. While presenting their opinions, physicians very often suggest the need of additional opinions given by other physicians being experts in particular fields of clinical medicine. On the basis of the above mentioned remarks the authors show the necessity for greater control over all medico legal opinions and by the court decision making process as well as the verification of experts qualifications taking into consideration of economy and the need to make the proceedings shorter.
在修订了西里西亚医科大学法医系卡托维兹分部实践中关于地区法院判定丧失工作能力和社会保险的强制性规则之后。我们部门通常在法定养老金程序中被指定提供第二种意见。首先，法院会指定临床医学特定领域的专家医生。尽管所接受结论存在各种差异，但对西里西亚医科大学法医系法医专家或专家小组给出的法医学意见进行的比较分析表明，个别专家给出意见的方式存在缺陷，即涉及在养老金申请争议人员中缺乏总体健康状况评估，以及在养老金程序中判定丧失工作能力时忽视了强制性规则和程序。众所周知，法院指定的医生仅确定被检查者是否能够工作，而不提供关于丧失工作能力性质的任何信息，也不考虑社会保险部门在养老金预防范围内进行治疗性康复的可能性，或者因目前职业丧失工作能力而改变职业的机会。在发表意见时，医生们经常建议需要由临床医学特定领域的其他专家医生提供额外意见。基于上述言论，作者表明有必要加强对所有法医学意见以及法院决策过程的控制，并在考虑经济因素和缩短程序必要性的情况下对专家资格进行核查。
