L'espace de travail IA pour les professionnels du droit
Essai gratuit de 14 jours (10 questions/jour pendant l'essai)
ATA/338/1997•No reconsideration for merely repetitive epileptic episode
ATA/338/1997Cour de justice / Chambre administrative3 juin 1997Dismissed
Extrait par Omnilex
The applicant asked for reconsideration of an accident-insurance objection decision after suffering another epileptic seizure and producing a consultation report and home-care observations. The authority refused to enter into the merits, finding that the episode did not materially differ from the symptoms known in the earlier proceedings and that no new, important facts or evidence had been shown. The refusal did not restart the appeal period, because the lower authority had not wrongly denied the statutory conditions for reconsideration.
Art. 48 LPA; reconsideration requires new and important facts or evidence that the party could not invoke in the earlier proceedings. A later medical episode does not qualify when it merely reproduces previously known symptoms and does not materially change the factual basis. A refusal to enter into the merits on reconsideration does not open a new appeal period unless the authority incorrectly denied the existence of the statutory prerequisites.
Descripteurs
ASSURANCE SOCIALE; AA; EPILEPSIE; TENDANCE A LA REVENDICATION; INVALIDITE(INFIRMITE); MESURE DE READAPTATION(ASSURANCE SOCIALE); PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE; CONDITION DE RECEVABILITE; OPPOSITION(PROCEDURE); RECONSIDERATION; REVISION(DECISION)
Normes
LPA.48
Résumé
La survenance d'une nouvelle crise d'épilepsie, dans la mesure où elle ne diffère guère des symptômes présentés par le recourant dans la procédure ayant abouti à la décision sur opposition de son assurance accident, ne justifie pas le dépôt d'une demande de réexamen. Cet épisode, ainsi que le rapport de consultation et les observations du service des soins à domicile produits, ne permettent pas de mettre en évidence l'existence de faits ou de moyens de preuve nouveaux et importants que le recourant ne pouvait connaître ou invoquer dans la procédure précédente. Ce refus d'entrer en matière sur le fond ne fait pas courir un nouveau délai de recours, à moins que l'autorité inférieure ait nié à tort l'existence des conditions requises, ce qui n'a pas été le cas en l'espèce.
Extrait par Omnilex
Whether the new epileptic seizure and later reports justified reconsideration/revision of the prior accident-insurance objection decision.
No. The seizure and submitted reports did not establish new and important facts or evidence that could not have been invoked earlier.
The new episode largely repeated the symptoms already known in the earlier proceedings, so it was not a qualifying new fact or important evidence.
Whether the refusal to enter into the merits started a new appeal period.
No, unless the lower authority wrongly denied the existence of the reconsideration requirements; that was not the case here.
A refusal to consider the request does not trigger a fresh appeal deadline when the authority correctly found the prerequisites for reconsideration unmet.
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.