The transfer of an employee from medical point of view SGB V does not provide for supply center (MVZ) to another MVZ. There is no entitlement to approval. This has been decided by the Federal Social Court. A medical service provider who had filed an application to approve the activity of an employed doctor who works in one of her medical care centers in another medical care center.
According to Section 95 (9) SGB V are To reject applications for approval of the employment of doctor in an MVZ if admission restrictions according to Section 103, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 of SGB V are stipulated for the specialist field concerned and no exception applies. In the planning area in which the plaintiff is seeking employment authorization, there are admission restrictions for the group of doctors specializing in pediatric and adolescent medicine. The regulation of Section 103, Paragraph 4a, Clause 1 of Book V of the Social Code, according to which contract doctor can dispense with license and can be employed in an MVZ, is neither directly nor analogously applicable here. On the one hand, there is no requirement here that the waiver involves contract doctor. On the other hand, the waiver does not affect admission, but employment. And thirdly, the MVZ does not renounce its own status, but rather waives the employment permit for doctor employed by it. Since the regulations for individual facts are exceptions to the strictness of the degree of supply-dependent planning with admission blocks in over-supplied areas, an extended application is not possible. There is also lack of homogeneity in the matters to be regulated. In addition, in the opinion of the court, contract doctor law offers wide range of design options that could be used by those involved in situations such as this one. For example, it could be considered that the two MVZ merge to form supra-local professional community and, within this framework, allow an employee to work in one or the other MVZ. Similarly, it could be considered that the MVZ should set up branch practice and allow employees who work for it to work there. (BSG, judgment of March 23, 2011, Az .: B 6 KA 8/10 R) Attorney Barbara Berner