If a woman is ill-treated for a long time because of a miscarriage and a subsequent depression, this can not lead to less parental allowance in the case of another pregnancy and childbirth. Because the depression is a "pregnancy-related illness", in the case of parental allowance, the times of the sick leave and therefore associated lower income are therefore outside, the Bundessozialgericht( BSG) in Kassel( Az.: B 10 EG 9/ 15R).
A woman from Bavaria, who suffered a miscarriage again in the autumn of 2011, had accused. Because of the miscarriage, the woman fell ill with a depression. Her doctor wrote her sick.
It was not until December 2012 that she could work again. She was pregnant again. This time the pregnancy ended happily. In April 2013 she gave birth to a son.
The freshly baked mother went on parental leave and applied for parental allowance. But this much less than thought.
The parents 'account had taken into account the income of the last twelve months in the calculation of the parents', in which the woman was sick because of her miscarriage and depression and had lower income.
The mother considered this calculation to be incorrect. The law stipulates that "a disease that was decisively caused by a pregnancy" must be disregarded in the calculation of the parental allowance. Therefore, their higher earnings before the miscarriage should be included in the calculation of the parental allowance.
The state of Bavaria said that periods for a pregnancy-related illness can only be disregarded in the calculation of the parental allowance if the pregnancy actually ended with the birth of a child for whom the mother receives parental allowance. But this was not the case here.
However, the BSG justified the mother. According to the law, "one" pregnancy is sufficient, so that any illnesses and disabilities involved in the calculation of parental allowances are disregarded. The applicant can therefore request a calculation of the parental allowance according to the income it had received before the miscarriage. The period of her illness would not be taken into account during the 12-month period.
It does not matter whether the disease-inducing pregnancy ended with the birth of the living child or whether the disease occurred after the pregnancy.
Because the legislator wanted to absorb the special health risks of pregnancy, according to the 10th BSG Senate. These risks should not result in a lower parental benefit for mothers.fle / mwo