At the end of December 2022, an anonymous report was received to the Social Insurance Agency about a man who receives income despite receiving sickness benefit from the authority. According to the report, the man dealt with repairs and sales while he was on sick leave from his regular workplace. Försäkringskassan assessed that the information could affect the man’s right to sickness benefit and began investigating cases. Some time later, another anonymous report was received about the man’s income. The investigative measures progressed. Försäkringskassan requested, among other things, account statements from the man, but when it was considered that these were not enough to prove anything, during the summer of 2023 several of the people who swished the man for work performed were contacted. Claimed for money After the investigative work, the Social Insurance Agency contacted the man via letter and informed him that he would not be granted sickness benefit for approximately three months in 2023. The man was also required to repay sickness benefit and parental benefit paid out between March 2022 and June 2023. After comments from the man the demand for reimbursement of the sickness benefit for the period was withdrawn. The man chose to report the whole thing to the OJ in order to have Försäkringskassan’s actions tested. In the report, he addresses, among other things, everything against the authority’s calls to the sales contacts. JO has limited the review of Försäkringskassan’s actions precisely to the man’s sales contacts and is now directing serious criticism at the authority. “Related unwarranted breach of privacy” According to JO, it was undisputed that the man sold things. Försäkringskassan had therefore made an estimate of the extent of the sale based on the account statements, writes JO. “I find it very difficult to see that the information that Försäkringskassan got through the contacts with the people in the swish report was needed for the authority’s assessment of the case,” writes JO in his statement. JO further considers that the Social Insurance Agency’s measures were not proportionate. “In my opinion, the action taken has resulted in an unjustified breach of privacy towards FH (the man, editor’s note), writes JO. Furthermore, JO writes that Försäkringskassan has received criticism for similar shortcomings over several years. “I assume that the authority takes the necessary measures to ensure that something like this does not happen again”.
t4-general