Expert "botch-up"?

Woman can’t see, but is not considered blind

Bettina Schenkenfelder does not understand why the pension insurance institution does not give in despite the obvious content.(Bild: Reinhard Judt)

After a stroke, a 46-year-old woman's visual center no longer functions. However, she was not sent to a neurologist, but to an ophthalmologist, who accused her of "faking it". She is now fighting a desperate battle for her care allowance and is also disclosing questionable procedures to which the pension insurance institution is not responding.

Three-minute home visits and conclusions that are not even possible from a professional point of view - because findings have not even been looked at roughly! There are more and more reports like this, the "Krone" reports again and again. As in the case of Bettina Schenkenfelder (46) from the district of Baden.

Stroke detected too late
She suffered from epilepsy as a child. She then suffered a stroke in January 2023, which was initially classified differently. "I complained of a headache, and a few hours later I couldn't see anything. A scan wasn't done until two days later, but unfortunately the visual center had died," says the woman, describing how her eyes could still "see", but that part of her brain could no longer process it.

Increase in care level initially rejected
Already receiving care level 1, she applied for an increase. Rejected! "A psychiatrist came to visit me at home. She was in my apartment for just under three minutes, took notes and left. There was no conversation and no insight into my findings." After two court reports, a hearing was held in December. The result: care level 3, but she is practically blind, which should mean level 4.

Pension insurance: "Can sue again"
The pension insurance company (PV) refers to an expert opinion that only proves a severe visual impairment. And: Schenkenfelder can sue again: "By filing the lawsuit, Ms. Schenkenfelder can submit current medical reports that may lead to a reassessment of the care requirements, i.e. the care level, by the court," it says.

To the ophthalmologist with "healthy eyes"
"I had to go to a PV ophthalmologist, even though my eyes were fine. He wrote in the report that I was faking," says the patient indignantly. Later she was told that the case was a matter for the legal department and that a colleague had not mentioned a stroke.

Recommended examination was already available
In addition, a brain wave measurement was recommended - but such findings were already available and confirmed the woman's statements. This VEP examination involves attaching electrodes to the head and measuring whether the visual center perceives something or not. "You can't simulate that. What's interesting is that my measurement shows that my brain doesn't perceive any movements and so on!"

Tricky questions, no answer
But how can it be that more and more people are turning to the "Krone" because of similarly scandalous expert opinions, findings and pension insurance practices? What is being done to prevent this? Are there no quality controls to give future claimants more security?

And why is it not possible to penalize and correct an expert's almost proven non-performance oneself if, for example, there are already clear findings that the doctor does not acknowledge and claim? The "Krone" also addressed these and other questions to the pension insurance company. However, all these questions remained unanswered.