Norway: 2026 NAV court case over disability benefits

I’m so happy he won!

Less happy that the separation between «CFS» and «ME» is in the official documentation of the case though. To argue that someone with CFS benefits from exercise but someone with ME doesn’t doesn’t work when the terms are used interchangeably in diagnostic manuals in Norway.
 
It's the argument by the defense as I read it, but still. If they won it still gets legitimacy.

The ruling also has it on paper how welfare is about "hope" and "motivation" and include the famous "we can't rule out spontaneous recovery" ruling from a previous case. Good to have a collection of this mess at least.
 
we can't rule out spontaneous recovery​

And you can't rule it in either.

By its very definition you can't predict it, cause it, or rely on it. It has no role at all in future planning for an individual case.

THAT IS WHAT SPONTANEOUS MEANS!
 
Last edited:
Midnattsol said:
The ruling also has it on paper how welfare is about "hope" and "motivation" and include the famous "we can't rule out spontaneous recovery" ruling from a previous case.
Click to expand...
Which is an argument for the recognition of temporary sick leave, not the termination of any form of assistance. If someone is ill for a while and recovers, no longer needs assistance, then that assistance can end as they return to work, a clear win for everyone. We are such a weird species.
 
I read the court’s ruling. It seems very detached from reality - the majority seems to think that rehab, CBT, physio, etc. are appropriate treatments for ME/CFS, but that the patient was too sick to participate in those.

This is an auto-translated excerpt from the minority, which is even worse:
[Patient] is 23 years old, and there are many years to go before he reaches the standard retirement age. That age is relevant when assessing the treatment criterion is clear from Section 12-5, second paragraph, of the National Insurance Act. Case law also holds that the treatment criterion is applied more strictly the younger the applicant is.
Click to expand...
The treatment measures that [patient] has undertaken at home have proved ineffective in improving his condition. The main challenge appears to be that the public health service
has not been able to motivate him to try various forms of recommended treatment. A shift in understanding of the condition could also have an effect and be significant for recovery efforts. As the public sector has not been in a position to do so, there are also no documented attempts at treatment.
Click to expand...
This, combined with his young age, argues in favour of further treatment being attempted with a view to improving his ability to earn an income, including that such treatment attempts must be documented.
Click to expand...
In conclusion, it should be noted that this case is not about opposing risky and burdensome treatment, as [patient] argues, but about being open to trying some of the
forms of treatment that public health authorities, based on current knowledge, recommend for ME patients, and documenting that this has been done.
Click to expand...
 
Utsikt said:
I read the court’s ruling. It seems very detached from reality - the majority seems to think that rehab, CBT, physio, etc. are appropriate treatments for ME/CFS, but that the patient was too sick to participate in those.

This is an auto-translated excerpt from the minority, which is even worse:
Click to expand...

In conclusion, it should be noted that this case is not about opposing risky and burdensome treatment, as [patient] argues, but about being open to trying some of the
forms of treatment that public health authorities, based on current knowledge, recommend for ME patients, and documenting that this has been done.
Click to expand...

:jawdrop: terrifying blatant double-speak where someone thinks that simply by saying the opposite they can make it true no matter what their agenda /real beliefs are. What devious wording.

And of course it isn't 'based on current knowledge'. And when you remove that from the second non sequitur part of their sentence, after 'not about opposing risky and burdensome treatment'
but about being open to trying some of the forms of treatment that public health authorities recommend for ME patients, and documenting that this has been done.
Click to expand...

It seems to say they don't care what it does to ME patients, or if it is risky and burdensome. You do it anyway.

Can I confirm what 'excerpt from the minority' means? Is this those who were opposed but didn't win out in the end?

and who those people are and what conflicts they declared and didn't declare?.

It's simply not credible/logically true for someone to be able to claim/say they listened or read any evidence or have knowledge of (nevermind calling themselves an expert) the illness and science and at the same time - given having done that would have meant reading the evidence that these treatments have no basis, do no good and have harmed so many (and it's obviously tip of the iceberg given the illness makes reporting that so hard), oh and are all based on 'science'/propaganda so low quality the results shouldn't count (because it becomes propaganda given the bias could, you know, be misleading or even deliberate in order to 'fake a result') - say it isn't at least 'risky' and burdensome.

IN fact what they seem to be suggesting is that the patient and future patients in their eyes should be required to harm themselves 'by being open to' treatment that is not just 'risky' but 'to no good end' either! Even they aren't brave enough in these quotes to claim these 'forms of treatment' actually do any good, don't harm, aren't risky, aren't burdensome and haven't already been seen to cause patients to deteriorate - just that that's what they want patients to be required to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom