71 A fitter was absent from work due to a bad back and received sickness benefit. He was dismissed, and some four months later the local authority discontinued his sickness benefit on the grounds that he was no longer ‘fully unfit for work’. However, in his union’s opinion, he was unable to work as a fitter due to his bad back. The union therefore lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Employment Appeals Board, as he wanted to establish whether sufficient evidence had been obtained in the case for a decision to discontinue sickness benefit to be made. The reason for the Ombudsman’s doubts was that while processing the case, the Ombudsman had become aware that the local authority – when assessing whether the man was able to work – had obtained information about the job of fitter by calling the student guidance office at a technical high school. The Board decided to reopen the case and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make the decision. The local authority should, for instance, also have consulted the man’s own doctor. The Ombudsman does not have medical or social service expertise and therefore cannot assess whether a man is unfit for work or not. On the other hand, he can establish whether sufficient evidence has been obtained in a case, i.e. whether it has been adequately investigated. A married couple lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman about decisions made by the ­Patient Insurance Association and the Patients’ Complaints Board of Appeal. Even though these are health bodies, the Ombudsman does not consider complaints about their decisions because the Patient Insurance Association is a private association and not part of the public administration, while the Patients’ C ­ omplaints Board of Appeal is a court-like body and there­ fore also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. A man who fled from Iran to Denmark in the 1980s wanted a visit from his sister in Iran. He therefore applied for a tourist visa for Denmark for her. However, the Danish authorities turned down the application, among other reasons because the man’s sister did not fall within the right ‘category of persons’ and because in their opinion the man could visit his sister himself in Iran or meet up with her in another country. The man was disappointed, but the Ombudsman could not help him as the Ministry of Integration had followed an established, lawful practice. The Ombudsman’s task is to investigate whether the authorities comply with statutory rules and regulations. He cannot change existing rules, even if citizens find them unreasonable.