Court rules: neurostimulation suit for MS patient not eligible for reimbursement

Court rules: neurostimulation suit for MS patient not eligible for reimbursement

The Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court has decided that a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS) is not entitled to reimbursement of the costs for a full-body neurostimulation suit. This decision was made on May 14, 2025 and confirms the previous rejection by the Aurich Social Court. The case is of particular interest because it affects the legal framework for innovative treatments for chronic diseases.

The plaintiff, a 44-year-old woman, has been struggling with the degenerative disease for over 20 years. Her health has deteriorated in recent months, which is why she is now dependent on a walker and, for the past six months, even a wheelchair. In 2023, she applied for reimbursement of the neurostimulation suit, which aims to activate weakened muscles.

Legal background of the decision

The health insurance company with which the plaintiff is insured rejected the application to cover the costs with reference to Section 135 Paragraph 1 SGB V. The suit is therefore considered a “new examination and treatment method” that has not yet gone through the usual evaluation process. The court also found that multiple sclerosis cannot be viewed as a “life-threatening or regularly fatal disease” within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 1a SGB V. This assessment was crucial for reaching the verdict.

The plaintiff had argued that the suit improved her mobility and reduced spasms. Although she had positive experiences with the suit and reported an improvement in her quality of life, the lawsuit was dismissed by both the social court and the state social court. An appeal against the verdict was also not permitted.

Financial aspects and individual regulations

The costs for the neurostimulation suit amount to 8,721.74 euros, which the plaintiff raised herself after she was refused reimbursement of the costs. The court confirmed that such products will only be financed if they are recognized as a new treatment method and there is a positive recommendation from the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). To date, there is no such recommendation for the neurostimulation suit, which severely limits the plaintiff's legal claims.

An exception could be made for private patients, who could potentially receive reimbursement depending on their tariff. The individual contractual conditions would play a decisive role here. These legal regulations highlight the challenges faced by patients who rely on innovative therapies.

It remains important for those affected to follow developments in the area of ​​alternative treatment methods and the associated legal standards. The decision of the State Social Court is not only important for the plaintiff herself, but could also have far-reaching consequences for other MS patients who are hoping for similar products.

Further information on this topic can be found on the website Insurance journals and des medical journal.