Medical opinion (417,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Medical opinion
Total judgments found: 43

< previous | 1, 2, 3

• Judgment 432

  
  45th Session, 1980
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  The Tribunal holds the medical report to be the final decision. In it the reasons for the decision are stated in clear and unambiguous terms. The word "decision" occurs in the text. The complaint is time-barred and irreceivable.

  Keywords:

  complaint; date of notification; decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 376

  
  42nd Session, 1979
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  "[T]he Tribunal will accept the unanimous opinion of the Medical Board, which consisted of three especially well-qualified physicians [...]." The organization was unable to find a post which, on the advice of the physicians, would have been suitable. The complainant's performance was not beyond criticism but the main reason for the impossibility of finding a suitable post for her "was that her duties were highly technical and so there were few posts suitable for her". Her appointment was terminated correctly.

  Keywords:

  health reasons; medical board; medical opinion; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 173

  
  26th Session, 1971
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "The experts appointed by the Tribunal found that the complainant is suffering from a "motor hemisyndrome on the right side which is not organic in origin" and which is due mainly to extraordinarily persistent and skilful simulation. [...]
  In the present case the Tribunal can only base its judgment upon the experts' findings, which it has no reason to question. As the parties themselves admit, the experts discharged their responsibilities admirably. Their thorough analysis testifies both to their conscientiousness and to the depth of their scientific knowledge. There is nothing to suggest that their findings are incorrect or incomplete [...].
  Moreover, since the examination was ordered by the Tribunal because of the disagreement among the many physicians who had previously examined the complainant, it is not surprising that the experts should differ from some of their colleagues."

  Keywords:

  judicial review; medical opinion;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3