Doctorship assignment not only by age

Social Court Mainz gives 74-year ophthalmologist a new chance
Mainz (jur). Age may not be the sole criterion for occupying a doctor's office. This is true even if one of the applicants is already 74 years old, as the Social Court (SG) Mainz in a verdict announced on Thursday, June 16, 2016, ruled (Az .: S 16 KA 211/14).

The number of physicians admitted to statutory health insurance for contract medical care is limited in many more over-supplied areas. The Admissions Committee and, if applicable, the Appeals Committee, which are based at the respective Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, are responsible for reoccupying vacant doctoral residences. The social courts then negotiate complaints.

(Image: Sebastian Duda / fotolia.com)

In the dispute, a 64-year-old and a 74-year-old competed for a contract doctor's seat as an ophthalmologist. The admissions committee opted for the 74-year-old, because this was already on the waiting list longer.

The 64-year-old then called the appeal committee. He even thought the 74-year-old was better suited. Nevertheless, he decided for the younger, because this longer work as a contract doctor and therefore could better ensure a continuous supply.

On appeal of the 74-year-old, the SG Mainz lifted this decision now. In its now announced ruling of 11 May 2016, it obliged the Appeals Committee to decide on the new cast.

Admittedly, the admissions committees should take into account the age of the candidate. Here, however, this was clearly the sole criterion. This 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 candidate. Simply turning it off to age would "lead to a fundamental disadvantage of the older candidate". But just because of the younger age can not be concluded on a better or more continuous supply. Because there are many personal reasons to give up a practice or move it to another location. two