Social Court Mainz gives 74-year-old ophthalmologist a new chance
Mainz (jur). Age should not be the sole criterion for filling a doctor's seat. This applies even if one of the applicants is already 74 years old, as the Social Court (SG) Mainz decided in a judgment announced on Thursday, June 16, 2016 (Az .: S 16 KA 211/14).
The number of doctors admitted to statutory health insurance for contract medical care is limited in many areas that are over-supplied. The admissions committee and, if applicable, the appointment committee, which are located at the respective statutory health insurance association, are responsible for filling vacant medical positions. The social courts then negotiate complaints.
In the event of a dispute, a 64-year-old and a 74-year-old competed for a contracted doctor's seat as an ophthalmologist. The admissions committee chose the 74-year-old because he had been on the waiting list for a long time.
The 64-year-old then called the appeal committee. He thought the 74-year-old was even more suitable. Nevertheless, he chose the younger one because he could work longer as a contract doctor and could therefore better ensure continuous care.
Following a complaint by the 74-year-old, the SG Mainz now overturned this decision. With its recently announced judgment of May 11, 2016, it obliged the Appeals Committee to decide on the new appointment.
Admission committees may well take into account the age of the applicant. Here, however, this was clearly the only criterion. That should not be "from a discrimination point of view," emphasized the Mainz judges.
This becomes clearer when comparing, for example, a 35-year-old and a 45-year-old applicant. Simply turning to age would "lead to a fundamental disadvantage of the older applicant". However, better or more continuous care cannot be inferred simply because of the younger age. Because there are also many personal reasons to give up a practice or relocate to another place. two