PVA refuses hand prosthesis - Ombudsperson Achitz: "Prime example of poor administration"

Michael G. has been missing his right hand since he was 15 years old. He has a prosthesis, but without functions - a "jewellery hand", as he says. To enable the 57-year-old to work better and because he wants to keep his job until he retires, he applied for a myoelectric forearm prosthesis with gripping function. The PVA had him test the prosthesis at a rehabilitation centre for a fortnight - only to tell him that he didn't need the prosthesis at all - application rejected! This is incomprehensible to Ombudsperson Bernhard Achitz: "Michael G. needs the prosthesis for his job, which is why the PVA has to approve it. There are always calls for people to stay in work for longer, but when it comes down to it, social insurance puts obstacles in the way."

Michael G. applied for a myoelectric forearm prosthesis with gripping function from the pension insurance organisation a year ago. In the summer, he completed a two-week prosthesis trial at the Bad Häring rehabilitation centre, which was successful. Nevertheless, the application was surprisingly rejected in December. G. works for a trading company and also needs the prosthesis to carry out his job, for example to operate computer keys, turn the pages of brochures or give product presentations.

Problem is pushed back and forth within the social insurance system

Achitz criticises the rejection not only in terms of content, but also the process is a "prime example of poor administration". G. had first submitted an application to the ÖGK, where it was held up for a very long time until it was finally forwarded to the PVA, which also took a long time to process it. "The problem is being passed back and forth within the administration," said Achitz in the ORF TV show "Bürgeranwalt" on 17 May: "The social insurance providers should agree among themselves or in their umbrella organisation who is responsible, without the person concerned noticing anything. But it is clear that the social insurance organisation has to finance the prosthesis."

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: the right to participate in social life

In Michael G.'s case, social insurance has to fund the prosthesis because he needs it to stay in work for longer and carry out a higher-value activity. From the perspective of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), however, it wouldn't matter whether he needed the prosthesis for work or private reasons anyway. "The UN CRPD demands that people with disabilities are enabled to participate fully in everyday life and in society." Michael G. was also hit hard psychologically by the rejection after the carrot was held in front of his nose during the two-week test phase. He no longer wants to do without the prosthesis because "it makes you a fully-fledged person again."


Translation was AI-generated

Ombudsman logo
Logo ORF On Auf ORF ON können Sie die Sendungen des Bürgeranwalts auch online sehen