[Medical expert assessment, objectivity and justice in disability pension cases. ].
BACKGROUND
The formal principle of justice is often interpreted as the requirement of objectivity when a person's situation is to be evaluated in the light of social justice. The aim of this article is to analyse whether or not the formal principle of justice is fulfilled by the ontological and the epistemological concept of objectivity when disability claims are evaluated medically in relation to the Norwegian legislation on disability benefits.


METHODS
material is legal and medical texts about medical disability evaluation. The method is text analysis.


RESULTS
The main result is that the concept of ontological objectivity functions as the criterion of objectivity when the causal relations between sickness, impairment and disability are explained. This criterion is, however, problematic because it is based on the assumption that there is a linear causal model of these relations, which precludes the explanation of many cases of disability.


CONCLUSIONS
The ontological concept of objectivity is not a necessary condition for impartiality and formal justice in relation to the causal relation between sickness and disability. In some situations this concept is a sufficient condition. The epistemological concept of objectivity is a sufficient condition, but it is not a necessary condition. Some cases must be reviewed on a discretionary basis.
Solli
Hans Magnus
HM
Fylkestrygdekontoret i Telemark, Postboks 2861 Kjørbekk, 3702 Skien. h.m.solli@samfunnsmed.uio.no
D015984:Causality; D003210:Concept Formation; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005104:Expert Testimony; D006801:Humans; D007345:Insurance Claim Review; D018868:Insurance, Disability / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D010415:Pensions; D018582:Sick Leave / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D012935:Social Justice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D012943:Social Security / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence