104 annual report 2011 The Ombudsman agreed with the Agency’s conception of the law. He was thus of the opinion that the National Board of Industrial Injuries should not have passed on the diagnostic information in the two reminder letters concerned. (Case No. 2007-3407-003) 1-2. Requirements on grounds given in disability pension case A man complained to the Ombudsman about his disability pension case, including in particular a question of inclusion of a particular expert opinion from a medical specialist. The local authority and the Employment Appeals Board had refused the man’s application for disability pension, and the National Social Appeals Board had declined to consider the case as it was not of fundamental or general public importance. The Ombudsman did not find that there were grounds for criticising the authorities’ decisions in the case. However, the Ombudsman did find that there was (definite) occasion for the Employment Appeals Board to explain in the grounds for its decision the significance of the above-mentioned expert opinion from a medical specialist and to account for the reason why this particular expert opinion was not given decisive importance. The Ombudsman stressed that the expert medical opinion which was given importance and the one which was not given importance differed widely, also in that the latter expert opinion might argue for an outcome which was different from the actual outcome of the case. The Ombudsman also gave weight to the fact that the man had drawn the attention of the Employment Appeals Board particularly to the expert opinion which was not given importance and that the man considered that expert opinion to be of decisive importance. Therefore, the Ombudsman considered it an error that the Employment Appeals Board had not in the grounds for its decision explained the significance of the medical expert opinion which was not given importance in the decision. (Case No. 2010-2810-0410)