projects

Revision admitted on personal treatment by relatives

BVerwG 2 B 48/10, 2 B 48/10 (2 C 80/10)Bverwg / Division 2Dec 21, 2010Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Administrative Court admitted the revision against the OVG Lüneburg judgment. The court held that the case raises a question of fundamental importance: whether a ‘personal’ activity of a close relative during medical treatment, excluding beihilfe entitlement under § 5 Abs. 4 Nr. 6 sentence 1 BhV, also exists when the beneficiary was treated only by an employee in the relative’s practice rather than by the relative personally.

Omnilex headnote

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO; admissibility of revision for fundamental importance in beihilfe matters involving treatment by relatives. Revision is to be allowed where the appeal court decision raises an unresolved legal question capable of clarification in the revision proceedings. A personal activity of a close relative within the meaning of the beihilfe exclusion may also be at issue when the beneficiary was not treated directly by the relative, but only by an employee in the relative’s practice; the decisive point is the legal scope of the notion of personal participation in the treatment context (consid. 1).

Full text

BVerwG — 2 B 48/10, 2 B 48/10 (2 C 80/10), Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-12-21

Aktenzeichen: 2 B 48/10, 2 B 48/10 (2 C 80/10)

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 5 Abs 4 Nr 6 S 1 BhV ND, § 8 Abs 1 Nr 6 BBhV

Vorinstanz: vorgehend OVG Lüneburg, 23. April 2010, Az: 5 LB 388/08, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat

Titelzeile

Tätigkeit eines Angehörigen bei Heilbehandlung; Ausschluss des Beihilfeanspruchs

Gründe

1 Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Die angestrebte Entscheidung erscheint geeignet, zur Klärung der Frage beizutragen, ob eine "persönliche" Tätigkeit eines nahen Angehörigen bei einer Heilbehandlung, die nach § 5 Abs. 4 Nr. 6 Satz 1 BhV zum Ausschluss des Beihilfeanspruchs führt, auch dann gegeben ist, wenn der Beihilfeberechtigte nicht von seinem nahen Angehörigen eigenhändig selbst, sondern lediglich im Betrieb des nahen Angehörigen von einem Angestellten behandelt worden ist.

Keywords

beihilferevision admissibilityfundamental importancerelativemedical treatmentemployeepractice

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether revision should be admitted because the case raises a question of fundamental importance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO.

Extracted holding

Revision is admitted because the case may clarify whether a personal activity by a close relative during medical treatment also exists when the insured person was treated not by the relative personally but only by an employee in the relative’s practice.

Extracted reasoning

The proposed decision is suitable to clarify an unresolved legal question concerning the scope of the exclusion of beihilfe claims for treatment by close relatives.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

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