The University Medicine Greifswald (UMG) failed before the Stralsund Regional Court with a three million euro claim for damages against its former commercial director, who was in office from 2004 to 2014.
According to the clinic, he is largely responsible for the fact that the company pension scheme for around 3,000 clinic employees is missing around 30 million euros. The presiding judge said on Friday that there may have been a breach of duty of care. However, she could not recognize intentional action. The lawsuit was dismissed.
The managing director at the time had ensured that in 2005 the UMG removed the company pension scheme for its non-academic employees from the Federal and State Pension Fund (VBL) and regulated it retrospectively from 2003 via the private pension fund DUK. This stands for the umbrella association of support funds for German hospitals. Behind the DUK is the insurance broker VAF Pfaffelhuber from Würzburg, which is controlled by Ulrich Pfaffelhuber.
Pfaffelhuber is known to be expensive. Most providers charge commissions of a maximum of two percent of the premium amount for such contracts, he often collects four percent – at the expense of the employees.
Like other clinics, the Greifswald-based company wanted to pull out of the government VBL solution, which was perceived as expensive, and instead switch to a supposedly cheaper private provider. The DUK lured with attractive conditions.
At that time, the DUK had to guarantee that the pensions of the employees would be just as high as those of the VBL. However, this promise was not kept, explained the UMG. The clinic is now liable for this: For employees who are going to retire, they have to contribute money so that they at least receive the VBL level.
The former managing director knew very early on that the DUK bill was not going to work, claims the UMG. From 2008 to 2014 he failed to file claims for damages against the DUK. So the gap got bigger and bigger.
Complainant lawyer Peter Doetsch raised serious allegations: “The DUK system can probably only be called fraudulent,” he said. “No attempt was made to back cover congruently.” Doetsch claims that the DUK did not aim at all that the services should be as high as the VBL.
The defendant’s lawyers replied that with the change, their client had only implemented the political will to organize company pension schemes more cheaply. According to the UMG, there would have been better private alternatives. In the opinion of the UMG lawyer, the fact that the procurement procedure took place three times at the time also speaks for the fact that the managing director did not accept the best offer. The managing director, who also sat on the advisory board of the DUK for many years, adjusted the criteria until its offer came off best.