The examination of the appeal against the decision of the Medical-Social Expertise Agency on not defining the disability category started
19:13, November 7, 2017 | News, Own news
On November 6, 2017, the examination of S. G.’s appeal against the Medical-Social Expertise Agency started at the RA Administrative Court.
S. G., considered as a person with a third-degree disability since 2009, was not recognized as a disabled person following the re-examination by the administrative procedure by the Medical-Social Expertise Agency as decided on May 16, 2017.
Prior to this, on March 27, 2017, in the course of a subsequent re-examination, S.G. was recognized as a person with a third-degree disability for an indefinite period of time.
With the appeal lodged with the Court, S. G. has demanded to annul the Agency’s decision made on May 16.
S. G. and the representative of the latter, Tatevik Siradeghyan, HCA Vanadzor Yerevan Office lawyer, as well as Bella Hovhannisyan and Mariam Yeritsyan, the representatives of the Respondent, were present at the court session held on November 6.
T. Siradeghyan, the representative of the Appellant, defined the subject and the grounds of the appeal.
It was indicated by T. Siradeghyan that, owing to the existing medical documents in the medical-social expertise portfolio, S. G. should have been recognized as a person with a third-degree disability for an indefinite period of time, and the implementation of his re-examination did not emanate from constitutional pre-conditions.
The Respondent defined its position against the appeal, indicating that the inconsiderable functional disorder found in the disease of the Appellant did not result in limited vitality. Therefore, there had been no grounds for assigning a disability status.
The Court and the Appellant attempted to find out what had served as a basis for annulling the decision to recognize the Appellant as a person with a third-degree disability for an indefinite period of time.
In response to this, the representatives of the Agency informed that the description of the objective review of the Appellant’s epicrisis did not coincide with the diagnosis.
Afterwards, the representative of the Appellant asked the Respondent questions related to the grounds and the subject of the appeal as well as the scope of legal acts to be applied.
Due to the end of the working day, the preliminary court session was adjourned and scheduled for 11.00 on March 6, 2018.