[Occupational cancer of the urinary tract-incidence, reporting behavior, and administrative procedures]. / Berufsbedingte Tumoren der ableitenden Harnwege ­ Häufigkeit, Meldeverhalten und administratives Vorgehen.

Tumors of the urinary tract are among the most common types of occupational cancer. A significant proportion of about 5-15% may be of occupational etiology. Suspicion of an occupational genesis is subject to mandatory reporting. However, epidemiological analyses show that the number of reports received by accident insurance companies and employers' liability insurance associations is significantly lower than expected. Finally, the economic and administrative effort in surveying a patient's occupational history hinders adequate reporting. By routinely and systematically using a structured questionnaire as part of clinical routine in our hospital, a significantly improved detection of justified suspected cases (from about 4.8% to about 67% of the theoretically expected value) has been achieved since about 2006. In addition to improved medical care and adequate compensation for recognition as an occupational disease, disease-related care is subject to extra-budgetary remuneration in Germany (UV-GOÄ).

[Prerequisites for a convincing (neuro-)urology opinion : Importance of objectivity in the legal sense of full proof, occurring under duty of compliance of the surveyed person]. / Voraussetzungen für ein überzeugendes (neuro)urologisches Gutachten : Stellenwert der Objektivierung im Sinne des Vollbeweises unter Mitwirkung(spflicht) des Probanden.

Convincing urological expert opinions require the objectification of medical history complaints of health and functional disorders in the legal sense of obtaining full proof. This means that there is such a high degree of likelihood, beyond any doubt of a reasonable person observing the condition (Bundessozialgericht Entscheidung [BSGE] 32, 203/207). This requires a comprehensive general and special medical history survey, as well as a series of urological examination procedures in the hands of experienced urologists. In addition, it is necessary to observe the fundamentals of the various legal areas, from which the opinion order comes from, without exception. However, it would not be possible in all cases to achieve an unequivocal clarification of the problem in question. Nevertheless, it should be ensured that the best possible approximation to the actual truth of the case is reached. In this way, the democratic fundamental right of all the appraised persons to equal treatment could be met in the best possible way and optimal support to the commissioning institutions would be made available.