versorgungsrechtlich

11:09 Jul 24, 2021 

I completely agree with Anne and with you, this sentence is so unclear, and it is very difficult to know exactly what the expert report means here. However, normally, findings (medizinische Befunde) are associated with diagnosis. It can well be that this person was just diagnosed but was never treated. So he/she could potentially obtain proof of the diagnosis.

07:00 Jul 24, 2021 

much for the asylum seeker living on the edge who presents to the doctor and explains his tough case from that perspective - of wishing to remain in this country, for which, inter alia, a documented, consistent case history including proof of source country treatment is needed. So it says "[doctor’s perspective unclear, ?]" twice in that sentence.

06:36 Jul 24, 2021 

Thanks, Anne. Like I said, even the meaning of the grammar, as it were, is unclear. However, I will have to find a way ... translator has to make things easier for target text user rather than making them even more complicated than they already are for source text user. As there are minor pointers from the context, the somewhat erratic style of that doctor who does not always get his words right, and the textual background, that the original translation posted does reflect the meaning of the grammar, so to speak ("which had also been treated in his home country" being reported speech), and what the doctor actually meant to say, I might leave it at that and only put a question mark in brackets as this translation is not certified. I think an actual explanation in hard brackets (I don't like footnotes) might already overcomplicate matters for the reader and there is no time left for an agency query. The normal educated native speaker to native speaker understanding of "die in seinem Heimatland behandelt auch ***versorgungsrechtlich Anerkennung gefunden hätte***" is "had it been treated in his home country, it would have actually been recognised ...", but that reading does not do ...

21:28 Jul 23, 2021 

Ich finde diese Formulierung so uneindeutig, dass man sie eigentlich nur relativ wörtlich übersetzen und mit einer A.d.Ü. versehen kann. Weder ist klar, ob diese postulierte Erkrankung im Heimatland behandelt wurde oder nicht ("in seinem Heimatland behandelt" könnte sowohl "sie wurde behandelt" als auch "da sie behandelt wurde" oder "wenn sie behandelt worden wäre" bedeuten), noch kann man entnehmen, ob sie (deshalb) in seinem Heimatland versorgungsrechtlich anerkannt wurde, dort anerkannt worden wäre (wenn sie dort [diagnostiziert und] behandelt worden wäre), in Deutschland anerkannt worden ist (weil sie in seinem Heimatland behandelt wurde) oder in Deutschland anerkannt worden wäre, wenn sie in seinem Heimatland behandelt worden wäre.

20:40 Jul 23, 2021 

Thanks very much everybody. => "He made reference to an overarching mental disorder that he had had for decades, which had also been treated in his home country and recognised as making him eligible for claims under the law of occupational benefits, without being able to exhibit any medical findings to support his statement, in regard to which he did, however, allege that he could obtain them".

19:22 Jul 23, 2021 

Also, did his issue get treated there? Not completely sure even though that seems to be the case.



Years => decades
Own country => home country