Legal insights · German law
Electric wheelchair add-on drive: statutory health insurers must consider everyday circumstances
A less expensive electric wheelchair is not automatically sufficient. The German Federal Social Court requires an assessment of the living environment and the scope for using the person's own remaining strength.
The judgment at a glance
A statutory health insurer may not refuse an electric wheelchair add-on drive solely because an ordinary electric wheelchair would be less expensive. It must assess which solution is actually suitable for the insured person's everyday circumstances, including their living environment and the possibility of continuing to use their remaining strength.
This was decided by the German Federal Social Court in its judgment of 18 June 2026.
Statutory health insurer offered an electric wheelchair
The claimant has, among other conditions, an incomplete spinal cord injury and muscle weakness. Outside his home he used a lightweight wheelchair with a manual handrim drive.
He applied for an electric add-on drive. Rather than moving the wheelchair entirely independently, it amplifies the force that the user applies to the handrims.
The statutory health insurer refused the application and instead offered a compact electric wheelchair. The Higher Social Court considered this sufficient and more economical, taking the view that the specific housing circumstances and conditions at the person's place of residence were generally not decisive.
Living environment and remaining strength must be assessed
The German Federal Social Court overturned that decision. An abstract assessment is insufficient when providing a mobility aid. What matters is which journeys the person actually needs to make around their home.
This may include journeys to shops, doctors or pharmacies and other regular daily journeys. Relevant factors include:
- Distances to important destinations,
- Uphill and downhill gradients and other obstacles,
- The person's health and remaining strength,
- Mobility aids already in use,
- Whether the requested aid can be operated safely.
Particularly outside larger towns, essential everyday destinations may be further away. The local area must not be defined purely in the abstract; actual conditions in the person's living environment also matter.
It is about more than reaching a destination
The court's comments on remaining strength are particularly important. An insured person cannot simply be required to use a fully electric wheelchair if, in their individual circumstances, a drive supporting their remaining strength offers a significant additional practical benefit. This may particularly be the case where it allows the person to continue using their own physical strength.
Providing a mobility aid is therefore about more than whether a person can somehow get from one place to another. Mobility that is as independent and self-determined as possible is also a legally protected need.
An electric wheelchair and an add-on drive supporting the user's remaining strength can therefore offer different practical benefits despite having a comparable range.
No automatic entitlement
However, the judgment does not mean that the statutory health insurer must pay for every requested add-on drive.
The insurer may still assess whether the aid is necessary and economical. For example, there may be no entitlement where a suitable aid is already available or a less expensive alternative enables daily journeys equally well while also allowing the person's remaining strength to be used.
The person must also be able to use the add-on drive safely. If, without a connection to necessary daily journeys and journeys to maintain health, including leisure journeys within that scope, the aid serves wider sporting or recreational interests, the integration assistance provider may be responsible rather than the statutory health insurer.
Nor has the claimant in this case yet been finally awarded the add-on drive. The German Federal Social Court referred the case back to the Higher Social Court, which must now examine his personal circumstances and local conditions more closely.
What those affected should do now
If you apply for an electric add-on drive or another motor-assisted mobility aid, you should provide specific evidence of your individual needs:
- Document regular daily journeys, including distances and obstacles.
- Record gradients, poor route conditions or the absence of accessible alternatives.
- Ask a doctor to explain the remaining strength available and why using it is beneficial.
- Explain the particular benefits of the requested add-on drive.
- Where possible, try out alternatives proposed by the statutory health insurer in practice.
- After a refusal, check whether the statutory health insurer has considered the actual living environment and personal circumstances.
Under the German Federal Social Court's judgment, a blanket refusal referring to an electric wheelchair is insufficient. Whether an entitlement exists remains a question of the individual case.
We assess your matter
If your statutory health insurer has refused a requested wheelchair add-on drive, or if you are pursuing an administrative objection or court proceedings, we can assess whether the decision can be challenged on legal grounds.
Source
Your contact
Discuss your matter with us
Enquire about representation ↗General information does not replace an assessment of your individual matter.