Key legal question
Whether the insured's residual earning capacity justified only a 13% invalidity rate or a much higher pension entitlement.
Extracted holding
The cantonal court's income comparison and the CNA's 13% invalidity assessment were upheld; the insured did not show a higher loss of earning capacity.
Extracted reasoning
The pre-injury income found by the lower court was not disadvantageous to the insured. Medical evidence showed full work capacity in an adapted light, mainly seated occupation, and the alleged psychological impairment was not established as disabling.