Meissner Ewa, Barzdo Maciej, Zydek Leszek, Markuszewski Leszek, Szram Stefan, Berent Jarosław
Zakład Medycyny Sadowej, Katedry Medycyny Sadowej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Lodzi.
Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2005 Oct-Dec;55(4):301-3.
This paper describes a case of ex post opinion in the judgement of work disability for purposes of benefit qualification, in which numerous, frequently contradictory disability certifications by KIZ, WKIZ, ZUS physician-certifiers and court medical opinions were issued. Despite the simplicity of her case, a woman underwent 17 examinations in connection with the opinions and certifications. The court, instead of verifying the opinions and clearing up all doubts through questioning legal experts, submitted subsequent opinions as evidence, and ZUS broke the law by issuing work certification in spite of a legally binding court ruling.
本文描述了一个在判定工作残疾以确定福利资格时的事后意见案例，在此案例中，德国法定健康保险机构（KIZ）、地方法定健康保险机构（WKIZ）、法定健康保险机构的医师认证人员以及法院医学意见给出了众多且常常相互矛盾的残疾证明。尽管该女子的情况简单，但为了获取这些意见和证明，她接受了17次检查。法院没有核实这些意见，也没有通过询问法律专家来消除所有疑问，而是提交后续意见作为证据，并且法定健康保险机构不顾具有法律约束力的法院裁决，违法出具了工作证明。
