§ 109 SGG counter-expert opinion

In social compensation law, expert opinions can play a decisive role in whether experiences of violence and their health consequences are recognised.

In proceedings before the social courts, § 109 SGG gives those affected the option of applying for a doctor of their choice to be heard as an expert. Especially after an expert opinion that went against them, this option can be of great importance.

In practice, however, we came up against a fundamental difficulty: Those affected have to name a suitable expert – but, especially for questions of testimony credibility, they can hardly find anyone who meets the professional requirements and actually accepts such an assignment.

A concrete problem therefore turned into a larger research and awareness project.

Our aim is to find out:

• Where can those affected find suitable experts?
• Who is responsible for providing reliable guidance?
• What is happening with the register of expert assessors provided for by law in social compensation law?
• And how can a right under § 109 SGG actually be used if access to suitable professionals is hardly possible in practice?

Even months after our nationwide research began, the question of actual access to suitable experts has not been finally resolved.

In response to one of our enquiries, the Augsburg Social Court informs us that it cannot answer the questions itself and cannot send any lists of experts. Our enquiry is therefore forwarded to the Bavarian Higher Social Court.

For us, this response once again shows the fundamental problem: Those affected are passed from one office to the next, while they themselves have to name a specific expert to the court.

After a further enquiry, we again receive a written reply from the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS). The ministry confirms once more that it will create a register of expert assessors.

At the same time, the BMAS points out that such a register could only provide information about the suitability of expert assessors – not about whether they are actually available or could take on an assignment.

For their own search, the BMAS continues to refer those affected to, among others:

• medical associations,
• professional associations,
• and lawyers specialising in social law.

For us, a crucial question therefore remains open: How is a person affected supposed to make practical use of a legal right if they have to name an expert themselves, but no central office can say who is actually available for such an assignment?

The BMAS reply from July clarifies for us for the first time who will be responsible for the register of expert assessors in future. However, it does not solve the actual problem.

That is why we ask again: What does a future register mean for those affected who need an expert now?

How is access supposed to work in concrete terms?

And how is it to be prevented that a statutory procedural right fails in practice because nobody can be found?

The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs answers our renewed enquiry in writing. In doing so, we receive a confirmation that is particularly important for our project: until the end of June 2026, the Federal Office for Social Compensation was responsible for keeping a register of medical expert assessors experienced in social compensation law.

However, the BMAS expressly informs us: No such register had been created by then. When the task passed to the BMAS in July 2026, there was therefore no existing register to take over.

The ministry explains that extensive research is now under way to create a register of expert assessors. It could not yet say at this point when the register would be publicly accessible.

This confirms one of our central observations: An orientation tool for those affected that is provided for by law was not available in practice for a long period of time.

In the course of our research it becomes clear that responsibility for the register of expert assessors is also changing.

The task was originally assigned to the Federal Office for Social Compensation in § 124 (4) no. 5 SGB XIV. In the course of legislative changes, however, the task is removed there or reassigned.

For those affected, this initially creates additional uncertainty: Who will actually keep the register in future?

We therefore turn once again to the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and ask for concrete clarification.

In response to our nationwide enquiries, we receive various replies from social courts.

In particular, we had asked the courts:

• whether they know suitable experts for such assessments,
• whether they can provide guidance,
• and how those affected are supposed to find a suitable expert for an application under § 109 SGG.

We document the replies we receive on an ongoing basis. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no easily accessible, nationwide point of contact for those affected through which the experts needed can be reliably found.

According to our research so far, the problem cannot be solved through individual enquiries. That is why we send a comprehensive enquiry to the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

In particular, we want to know:

• How will it be ensured in future that those affected find suitable experts under § 109 SGG?
• Who will keep the planned register of expert assessors?
• What alternative is there as long as this register is not available?
• Can those affected at least get some guidance on which experts have already been used in comparable proceedings?

For us, the focus is not on a single expert opinion. It is about a structural question of access to rights in social compensation law.

We begin extensive research with:

• social courts,
• medical associations,
• psychological and forensic-psychological professionals,
• professional associations,
• institutions,
• ministries,
• and other bodies.

At the same time, we specifically contact experts whose qualifications could in principle make them suitable for questions of testimony psychology or forensic psychology. The replies vary greatly.

Among other things, we learn:

• Some professionals do not prepare credibility assessments at all.
• Others only accept assignments from courts or authorities.
• Some do prepare such assessments, but are not available for privately initiated assessments.
• Others have no free capacity.
• Medical associations sometimes refer us to other associations, professional societies or psychological registers.
• For questions of testimony psychology, we are often referred to specially qualified forensic psychologists.

This makes visible exactly the tension that triggered our project: Professionally suitable people exist – but that does not mean that those affected can actually name them for proceedings under § 109 SGG.

After another enquiry to the Federal Office for Social Compensation (BfSE), we are told that there is no new information on the register of expert assessors. Even apart from this register, nobody there could name anyone to us for the kind of credibility assessment we are looking for.

At the same time, we learn that the task of keeping this register is to be removed from the federal office’s remit as part of a change in the law.

This raises a new question for us: If the office responsible so far has not set up the register and the task is now being moved – who will make sure that those affected actually get access to suitable experts?

As early as 2025, we ask the Federal Office for Social Compensation about the register of expert assessors provided for in § 124 SGB XIV.

We are told that implementation is still under development. Due to extensive coordination, no specific date could be given for when the register would be available.

This marks the start of research for us that was to go far beyond simply looking for a list.

Our project makes a fundamental tension visible: on the one hand, in proceedings before the social courts there is a legal option under § 109 SGG to have a particular doctor heard as an expert.

On the other hand, especially for specific questions – for example an assessment of testimony credibility in connection with experiences of violence – finding a suitable person can be extremely difficult.

In addition: the register of expert assessors provided for in social compensation law was not yet available during our research.

In this way, a right that exists in theory can become an obstacle in practice.

We do not want to stop at stating that it is difficult. We want to make visible where exactly the system does not work for those affected. That is why we:

• document the replies of the responsible bodies,
• follow up with ministries and courts,
• collect possible points of contact,
• follow the development of the register of expert assessors,
• and draw attention to structural gaps.

In the long term, we would like to see transparent and nationwide guidance that allows those affected to actually see: Who is suitable for which assessment – and who is actually available for it?

Because a right must not depend on whether a person affected has the strength, the knowledge and the means to search for a suitable professional themselves for months or years.

Rights must not only exist. They must also be within reach.

Together, KE!N EINZELFALL.