| Autor: |
Zellner M; Abteilung Urologie/Neurourologie, Johannesbad Fachklinik, Johannesstraße 2, 94072, Bad Füssing, Deutschland. michael.zellner@johannesbad.de., Schöps W; Am Rehsprung 44, 53757, Sankt Augustin, Deutschland., Jungmann OP; Urologische Klinik Lindenthal, Malteser Krankenhaus St. Hildegardis, Bachemer Str. 29-31, 50931, Köln, Deutschland., Böthig R; Neuro-Urologie, Querschnittgelähmten-Zentrum, BG-Klinikum Hamburg, Bergedorfer Str. 10, 21033, Hamburg, Deutschland., Kadhum T; Leibniz-Institut für Arbeitsforschung an der TU Dortmund (IfADo), Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Deutschland., Golka K; Leibniz-Institut für Arbeitsforschung an der TU Dortmund (IfADo), Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Deutschland. |
| Abstrakt: |
Convincing urological expert opinions require the objectification of medical history complaints of health and functional disorders in the legal sense of obtaining full proof. This means that there is such a high degree of likelihood, beyond any doubt of a reasonable person observing the condition (Bundessozialgericht Entscheidung [BSGE] 32, 203/207). This requires a comprehensive general and special medical history survey, as well as a series of urological examination procedures in the hands of experienced urologists. In addition, it is necessary to observe the fundamentals of the various legal areas, from which the opinion order comes from, without exception. However, it would not be possible in all cases to achieve an unequivocal clarification of the problem in question. Nevertheless, it should be ensured that the best possible approximation to the actual truth of the case is reached. In this way, the democratic fundamental right of all the appraised persons to equal treatment could be met in the best possible way and optimal support to the commissioning institutions would be made available. |
Full text from SpringerLink