National Insurance Court order on the effective date of disability benefits upheld as valid

A woman applied for disability benefits but was refused. Approximately one year later, she applied again and was once more refused. Following an appeal, she was granted disability benefits. The effective date — the date from which the benefit is paid — was set at three months prior to the new application, under section 22‑13 subsection 3 of the National Insurance Act.

Before the National Insurance Court, the woman succeeded in arguing that the refusal of her first application was due to an error on the part of NAV. The National Insurance Court therefore found that the benefit should be granted from the date it ought to have been granted had the claim been approved when first submitted; see section 22‑14 subsection 4 of the National Insurance Act. This entitled her to back payment for an additional 7.5 months.

The State brought an action challenging the validity of the National Insurance Court’s order. In the State’s view, section 22‑14 subsection 4 is not an independent rule on the effective date, but merely a provision on extraordinary back payment of instalments that would otherwise be time‑barred. According to the State, the effective date could therefore not be moved back unless the first decision had first been reversed, which had not occurred in this case. The State argued that the National Insurance Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to determine the effective date as it had done.

Like the Court of Appeal, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the National Insurance Court’s order was valid. The majority considered section 22‑14 subsection 4 to be a provision governing the effective date, entitling the claimant to back payments where a benefit was initially refused due to an error by NAV or another national insurance body, but later granted upon a new application. Under this provision, back payment is to be made from the date the benefit ought to have been granted had the claim been accepted when first submitted. The majority held that this effective date applies to the benefit granted following the new application, and that such back payment does not require the earlier refusal decision to be reversed. The provision also establishes that the Limitation Act does not apply to such back payments.

A minority of two justices found that there was no basis for interpreting section 22‑14 subsection 4 as anything more than a rule on limitation. Accordingly, back payment based on a prior erroneous refusal presupposes that the original decision is reversed. A refusal to reverse a decision is not an administrative decision (enkeltvedtak), and whether the National Insurance Court should have jurisdiction to review such a refusal is a matter for the legislature.

The judgment clarifies the effective date for benefits granted after having previously been refused due to an error by NAV. It also clarifies the National Insurance Court's jurisdiction to determine the effective date in such cases.

Area of law: Social security law, effective date, limitation

Key paragraphs: 77 and 78

Justices: Falkanger, Falch, Sæther, Hellerslia, Poulsen