projects

Beihilfe for implant-based dental prostheses

BVerwG 2 B 122/09, 2 B 122/09 (2 C 46/10)Bverwg / Division 2Aug 16, 2010Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint against non-admission in a beihilfe dispute over implant-based dental prostheses. It held that the revision may clarify the statutory and regulatory requirements for reimbursement, in particular whether the existence of a non-preservable residual dentition that is to be removed only after the implants have healed bars beihilfe coverage.

Omnilex headnote

§ 15 Abs. 1 BBhV; § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 BhV; Anlage 2 Nr. 4c BhV; beihilfe for implant-based dental prostheses. A complaint against non-admission is well founded where the proposed revision raises a clarifiable question of law concerning the scope and prerequisites of beihilfe coverage. In particular, the case may warrant clarification whether a residual dentition that is not worth preserving and is scheduled for removal only at the end of the implant osseointegration phase excludes reimbursement. The decisive point is the need for appellate clarification of the legal criteria governing implant-supported dental treatment (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerwG — 2 B 122/09, 2 B 122/09 (2 C 46/10), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-08-16

Aktenzeichen: 2 B 122/09, 2 B 122/09 (2 C 46/10)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 15 Abs 1 BBhV, § 6 Abs 1 Nr 1 BhV, Anl 2 Nr 4c BhV

Vorinstanz: vorgehend Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, 2. Oktober 2009, Az: 10 A 10519/09, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat

Titelzeile

Beihilfe für implantologische Leistung

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Das Revisionsverfahren kann Gelegenheit geben, die Anforderungen an die Gewährung von Beihilfen für implantatbasierten Zahnersatz (§ 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 BhV i. V. m. Anlage 2 Nr. 4 c BhV in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 1. November 2001, § 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 BBhV vom 13. Februar 2009) zu präzisieren. Insbesondere wird zu prüfen sein, ob das Vorhandensein eines nicht erhaltungswürdigen Restzahnbestands, der nach dem Behandlungsplan erst am Ende der Einheilphase der Implantate entfernt werden soll, einer Beihilfegewährung entgegen steht.

Keywords

beihilfedental prosthesesimplantsnon-admission complaintrevisionappellate review

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the non-admission complaint should be upheld and revision allowed in a beihilfe case concerning implant-based dental prostheses.

Extracted holding

Yes. The complaint is well-founded because the revision may clarify the requirements for granting beihilfe for implant-based dental prostheses, including the relevance of a non-preservable residual dentition to be removed only after osseointegration.

Extracted reasoning

The case raises a clarifying legal question under the cited beihilfe provisions, so appellate review is warranted.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.