Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/914/2006 • CJ GE ATAS/914/2006 Généré par l'IA

Review of Disability Benefit Termination Upheld

Numéro de cause ATAS/914/2006
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The case concerns the review of a lower tribunal's decision that upheld a termination of benefits, where the claimant argued the tribunal failed to properly consider evidence regarding their limited functional capacity following an injury and applied an incorrect standard for assessing disability. The reviewing court determined that the tribunal's decision was supported by substantial evidence, finding that it correctly weighed the conflicting medical and vocational evidence, particularly noting that the tribunal reasonably concluded, based on expert testimony and established regulations, that the claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform less physically demanding work, despite the claimant's contrary assertions regarding the severity of their limitations.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Review of Disability Benefit Termination Upheld: The reviewing court determined that the tribunal's decision was supported by substantial evidence, finding that it correctly weighed the conflicting medical and vocational evidence, particularly noting that the tribunal reasonably concluded, based on expert testimony and established regulations, that the claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform less physically demanding work, despite the claimant's contrary assertions regarding the severity of their limitations.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
révision de prestations d'invalidité constatation de l'aptitude au travail réexamen médical suppression de l'aide sociale moyens de preuve médicaux suspension de la rente d'invalidité

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This provision was cited in the dispositive section regarding the allocation of costs to the appellant.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet



                 !"

##$

 # %& '%%& $ #%'$ ' &$

'()   * " +,+   



-+ * ..........   !"#$%&   (() '()*!)   +!),-)( . /  01 (!





)(

/ ' $ % %&$  $ 0#%'$ $% ) ! ' 0'' $%   !23)))(45&&6   '()*!)   +!) ,-)( .  (



       

   167%1  

!  ('' ) ('(. 44*9(6&&8: () !  (:(!*  ()(;< 6&&8=

(((!')' > (=

 + )()  '(  ( 9  !  '()  (     '()  '('() )+0?)#< ))6#)9(6&&5=

 @( )(* )(  '() A +   )) ( >(     )(B

C .  )) 0    *) ?)( ('(  ) '( !0)   !   ( '' )   44 *9( 6&&8D  '(( )) *  (()  *9(6&&5'(!*))() D+()) !'): E!A4+&&&:(D:*((()F= ))0+ * )+)!( ()(0 ):  ) GD

# '$ - 1 &$ # %& '%%& $ #%'$ ' &$

* 2,,+   3

4,+5+)) 6 27  8 &9:

4D )A. 0!  ('' ) 44*9(6&&8 )!D

6D + * )A'(())*(()A((!  ('' )   (! D

%D @H))09 D

#D )E'()  0!':*((()): E!A 4&&&:(D

8D * )'(!0). A*(())(()D

5D @H))09 D

"D '' ) @()D8&  :('() 0@'*):(( (()('(!)((?)! %&<(>) : ) '(' 



785%76&&5  1%7%1   (!(! ( 9:!!((.3I J(3:0 55&&#   )( E' (D! ')?)('(G!D! ( )B K  0(E))0!  (()! (9) ( )' !  ))0!=9KE'('(0) : ) '* (()) )(!  =K'()( G)(('(!))D. ! ( ) ) '  )(  !!) !!(!  ))( K 9K ) K  1  ( 9:!!(('((')(() >((((0@  *(!(( ((*9D! ((() ((H  '(* 0  () < )    0  !   ))0! ) @*''  0!)!E'! !(()L()D4%64&5)4&;KD





    G(:: (B (! )B        (( . 9.





' :('(!)((?))) : !E'() )A+:: '(G(::





785%76&&5