Arşiv

📂 Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg – Appeal: Years of Denied Medical/Dental Treatment; Repeated Refusal to Appoint Independent Expert; Financial/Treatment Barriers; Doctors’ Successive Withdrawal; Role of Sozialgericht Berlin Judge – L 1 KR 417/26 ER

Contents of the Folder and Public Explanation This folder concerns the newly opened proceedings before the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg under case number L 1 KR 417/26 ER, and the preceding proceedings before the Sozialgericht Berlin under case number S 193 KR 463/26 ER, which form the basis of the present case. At this stage, no allegation of a legal violation or inaction is being made against the Landessozialgericht itself. The proceedings before the Landessozialgericht are new. In its official letter dated 11 September 2026, the Court confirmed that my appeal dated 8 September 2026, received on 9 September 2026, had been registered under case number L 1 KR 417/26 ER. The purpose of this folder is to enable the reader to understand, as a complete and connected record, why I appealed the decision of the Sozialgericht Berlin dated 20 August 2026 to the Landessozialgericht; what serious events occurred before the lower court; what evidence and requests were submitted to the court; what violations of rights I have alleged; and what I specifically request from the Landessozialgericht. The principal appeal consists of 37 pages. The subsequent pages contain a medical referral, correspondence from a dental practice, and photographic material documenting the condition. The first page of the appeal itself makes clear that this is not an ordinary dispute over dental costs, but a case concerning a medical-care crisis continuing for years, the unresolved status of my health-insurance coverage, and an ongoing serious danger to my health. The Case Did Not Begin With Three Root-Canal Treatments It is particularly important that the chronology be understood correctly. The dispute did not begin with the cleaning or treatment of three root canals. The principal issue I brought before the Sozialgericht Berlin already existed before that issue arose: a new treatment plan had been prepared, I had been deprived of normal chewing function for years, and I was waiting for the necessary comprehensive dental treatment to begin. According to the information and documents I submitted, an extensive treatment plan / Heil- und Kostenplan had been prepared by Dr. Michalis in January 2026. Nevertheless, by the beginning of March, no effective response had been obtained from AOK that resulted in the financing and commencement of the treatment. I was informed both by the treating side and by the Betreuung that AOK’s response was being awaited. It was precisely for this reason that, on 9 March 2026, I sought urgent judicial protection before the Sozialgericht Berlin. The appeal submitted to the Landessozialgericht also expressly records that the original application was dated 5 March and was received by the Sozialgericht on 9 March 2026. Accordingly, the position subsequently advanced that “we are waiting for the three root-canal treatments” was not the original reason for the court proceedings. The documentary chronology shows that the central problem already existed beforehand: despite the prepared comprehensive treatment plan, the necessary treatment was not beginning and no effective response from AOK was being provided. The Three Root-Canal Issue Arose Later, and I Was Made to Pay EUR 450 Myself After the court proceedings had already begun, the issue of three root-canal treatments was relied upon by AOK. My appeal to the Landessozialgericht expressly identifies this contradiction: AOK initially relied on the assertion that three root-canal treatments had not yet been completed; those treatments were subsequently carried out, yet I myself ultimately paid their total cost of EUR 450. For precisely this reason, the appeal requests an investigation into AOK’s position, the payments, and what subsequently happened to the overall treatment. This constitutes an important part of my serious objection: If AOK was relying on the three root-canal treatments as a condition for continuation of the principal treatment, the court should have required AOK to explain: when was this condition imposed; by which medical document was it imposed; what written instruction was given to the doctor; what decision was taken regarding the financing of those treatments; and why, in the end, was the patient himself made to pay EUR 450? I removed that obstacle using my own money. Nevertheless, the principal treatment still did not begin. The appeal before the Landessozialgericht expressly emphasizes this contradiction: the three root-canal treatments had already been carried out and paid for by me personally, yet even after that there was still no safe, continuous and comprehensive dental treatment. After One Obstacle Was Removed, a New EUR 1,575 Obstacle Appeared After I resolved the three-root-canal issue at my own expense, instead of the principal treatment beginning, a new financial barrier appeared. The appeal records that shortly before a treatment appointment the dental practice demanded an Eigenbeitrag of EUR 1,575 from me. The Landessozialgericht filing also specifically addresses this fact and requests a complete investigation, on the basis of the original accounting documents, of payments by AOK, possible ERGO payments, money received by the practice, and payments made personally by me. Accordingly, the documented sequence of events presented by me is as follows: a comprehensive treatment plan exists → no effective response is received from AOK → court proceedings are initiated → only thereafter is the condition of three root-canal treatments raised → AOK does not pay the EUR 450 cost → I pay the EUR 450 myself and remove that obstacle → the principal treatment still does not begin → a new personal payment demand of EUR 1,575 appears → appointments do not take place → ultimately, the treating practice terminates the treatment relationship. The Landessozialgericht is requested to investigate this sequence as an interconnected whole, rather than treating each individual stage as a separate and coincidental event. Successive Withdrawal of Treating Doctors From the Treatment Process One of the most important parts of the 37-page appeal is the demand for an investigation into the repeated changes and withdrawals of doctors and practices over a period of years. The document expressly states that the multi-year treatment history, repeated Heil- und Kostenpläne, numerous changes of doctors, incomplete implantological treatment, loss of chewing function, interrupted treatment, and the resulting subsequent damage must be assessed together as one overall factual and medical sequence. In particular, the withdrawal of Dr. Michalis’s practice is documented. The appeal records that on 25 June 2026 the practice terminated the treatment relationship with immediate effect. The annexes also contain the practice’s written e-mail confirming that termination. My serious allegation is that the withdrawal of the treating doctor could not lawfully or factually erase the preceding five-year course of events, the damage that had already occurred, AOK’s financial responsibility, or the requests and evidence already submitted to the court. On the contrary, the court should have investigated why this withdrawal occurred and what consequences it had for the treatment and the pending proceedings. I challenge the Sozialgericht’s use of the disappearance of the treating practice from the ongoing treatment relationship as a basis for weakening or treating the factual subject matter of the case as having disappeared. On the basis of the documentary chronology submitted in the proceedings, I allege that using the doctor’s withdrawal in this manner contributed to the failure to investigate and resolve the preceding events rather than eliminating them. A New Doctor Was Found – She Examined Me, Took X-Rays and Requested Confirmation of Financing From AOK Afterwards, I found another doctor. This event is described separately on pages 30–32 of the Landessozialgericht appeal. The new doctor examined me, took X-rays and assessed the possibility of treatment. A document was then prepared requesting confirmation from AOK concerning the transfer from the previous practice to the new practice and the coverage of the treatment costs. However, by the subsequent appointment the situation had changed, and that doctor also declined to continue the treatment in her own practice and instead referred me in the direction of an MKG department/clinic. In my appeal, I expressly demanded an investigation into the reason for this change: What new medical, administrative or other information emerged between the first and second appointments? What communications occurred with AOK, the Betreuung, the court or any other persons or institutions? Why did a doctor who had initially examined me, taken X-rays and indicated a willingness to treat me subsequently change her position? Before the Landessozialgericht, I have demanded investigation of this sequence as a serious indicator requiring examination of possible external intervention. I further demand that the origin and nature of any such intervention be established through documents, communication records, institutional files and witness testimony. An Independent Expert Examination Was Repeatedly Requested – Yet It Was Not Ordered or Carried Out This point must be stated with particular precision. The issue is not merely that an independent expert examination did not take place. During the proceedings before the Sozialgericht Berlin, I repeatedly and expressly requested an independent dental and oral-maxillofacial expert examination. Despite those repeated requests, the Sozialgericht did not appoint such an independent expert before issuing its decision. For precisely this reason, the Landessozialgericht appeal invokes the court’s duty to investigate the facts under §§ 103 and 106 SGG. The appeal specifically emphasizes that, despite a complex factual situation involving years of treatment history, repeated treatment plans, insurance questions, implant complications, changes of doctors, loss of chewing function and continuing deterioration of my health, no independent dental/MKG expert assessment was obtained. At the end of the 37-page appeal, 13 specific medical questions that should be answered by an independent expert are expressly identified. These include: the current dental, jaw and implant condition; the condition of implant 27; the materials used; which prosthetic constructions and implants are functional or non-functional; which teeth can still be preserved; whether the previous treatment was adequate; what future treatment is medically necessary; whether the years of delay contributed to deterioration of my health; and other directly related medical questions. This means that the request for independent expert examination was not vague, theoretical or incidental. It was a specific evidentiary request supported by defined medical questions, placed before the court in proceedings involving continuing deterioration of health. Implant 27 and an Already Documented Objective Medical Problem The court was not confronted merely with my subjective description of symptoms. The Landessozialgericht appeal refers to a dental examination dated 28 April 2026 and emphasizes the existence of objective medical documentation stating that implant 27 was located in the maxillary sinus (Kieferhöhle), was exposed/open and showed severe mobility. This made the obtaining of an independent expert assessment particularly important. The appeal also states that complete information concerning the implants placed in my mouth had not been obtained, including the manufacturer, product information, serial/LOT/UDI identification, implant passport and warranty documents, and requests that these matters be investigated. Demand for a Complete Investigation of AOK, ERGO and All Payments The relief sought before the Landessozialgericht is not limited to securing future treatment. I have also requested investigation of AOK’s complete administrative and payment records, the Heil- und Kostenpläne, invoices, payments, insurance status, communications with doctors and clinics, and payments connected with ERGO. The appeal specifically asks: How much did AOK pay to each practice? For which services? What amount was paid by ERGO? If payments were made, to which specific treatments were they allocated? Which amounts did I personally pay? Were payments made from different sources for the same service? Which services were billed but were not actually provided? The appeal requests that these questions be clarified through the original accounting and billing records, rather than assumptions or incomplete summaries. My Serious Allegation Concerning the Role of the Sozialgericht Berlin Judge in the Proceedings My position before the Landessozialgericht is not limited to saying that the Sozialgericht simply “made an incorrect decision.” The submitted court record documents that the serious events developed while the Sozialgericht Berlin was being repeatedly informed of them: I informed the court that treatment had not begun; I submitted the multi-year treatment history; I challenged the later introduction of the three-root-canal issue; I informed the court that I had personally paid the EUR 450 for those treatments; I reported the new EUR 1,575 demand; I informed the court that the treating practice had withdrawn; I submitted the new doctor’s documentation; and I repeatedly requested the acquisition of AOK’s records, examination of witnesses and appointment of an independent medical expert. Nevertheless, a decision was issued without an independent expert examination having been carried out, without all requested evidence having been comprehensively investigated, and without the causes of the documented chain of events having been established. For that reason, before the Landessozialgericht I seriously challenge the role of the Sozialgericht judge in this process. On the basis of the documents, submissions and chronology contained in the court record, I allege that the judge was not merely an outside observer of events: the judicial handling of the case permitted the unresolved treatment situation, evidentiary deficiencies and continuing medical deterioration to remain unresolved while the proceedings continued and were ultimately terminated at first instance. This folder does not invent that allegation retrospectively. Its purpose is to enable the reader to examine the documents and the chronological chain of evidence on which the allegation already submitted before the Landessozialgericht is based. Legal Grounds Raised Before the Landessozialgericht The 37-page appeal sets out extensive legal grounds under German social-court law, constitutional law and international human-rights law. In particular, it relies upon § 86b(2) SGG concerning urgent judicial protection, § 103 SGG concerning the court’s duty to investigate the facts ex officio, and § 106 SGG concerning judicial clarification of the case and completion of the evidentiary record. The appeal requests, among other measures, the acquisition of documents, examination of witnesses, appointment of an independent expert and preservation of evidence. At constitutional level, the appeal specifically invokes: Article 1(1) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) – human dignity; Article 2(2) GG – life and physical integrity; Article 3(3) GG – protection against discrimination; Article 19(4) GG – effective judicial protection; Article 20(3) GG – binding of state authority to law and justice. Under international law, the appeal invokes Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Articles 5, 13 and 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Urgent Investigation of the 2019 Oncological Findings, the Continuing Unknown Cancer Status, and the Restrictions on My Health-Insurance Coverage A further particularly serious part of the proceedings concerns my unresolved oncological condition and the status and restrictions of my health-insurance coverage. These matters were raised in the proceedings before the Sozialgericht Berlin and form part of the factual and evidentiary record now placed before the Landessozialgericht for review. In 2019, medical findings raised a serious suspicion of Kaposi sarcoma, an oncological disease. Despite this finding and the need for further diagnostic clarification and treatment, I documented that I was unable to obtain the necessary continuation of treatment through multiple hospitals and that, during this critical period, my AOK health-insurance coverage was suspended/restricted. The result is exceptionally serious: approximately seven years later, I still do not have a definitive and independently established assessment of what happened to that oncological condition, whether it progressed, whether metastatic spread occurred, or what my present oncological status is. For that reason, I specifically requested urgent medical clarification and investigation of this unresolved oncological condition. In particular, I requested that it be established without further delay whether the suspected oncological disease identified in 2019 has progressed during the intervening years, whether and to what extent metastatic disease or other oncological progression is present in my body, and what immediate diagnostic and therapeutic measures are now medically necessary. This request is not theoretical. It concerns an oncological finding that has remained unresolved for years while I have continued to suffer from serious chronic illnesses and while access to effective medical clarification has, according to the documentary record submitted by me, repeatedly been obstructed or left unresolved. Urgent Investigation of the 2019 Oncological Findings, the Continuing Unknown Cancer Status, and the Restrictions on My Health-Insurance Coverage A further particularly serious part of the proceedings concerns my unresolved oncological condition and the status and restrictions of my health-insurance coverage. These matters were raised in the proceedings before the Sozialgericht Berlin and form part of the factual and evidentiary record now placed before the Landessozialgericht for review. In 2019, medical findings raised a serious suspicion of Kaposi sarcoma, an oncological disease. Despite this finding and the need for further diagnostic clarification and treatment, I documented that I was unable to obtain the necessary continuation of treatment through multiple hospitals and that, during this critical period, my AOK health-insurance coverage was suspended/restricted. The result is exceptionally serious: approximately seven years later, I still do not have a definitive and independently established assessment of what happened to that oncological condition, whether it progressed, whether metastatic spread occurred, or what my present oncological status is. This is not merely my retrospective assertion. The insurance problem during precisely this critical medical period is itself documented by judicial proceedings. On 10 May 2019, proceedings before the Sozialgericht Berlin under case number S 56 KR 923/19 ER concerned urgent judicial protection in relation to my health-insurance coverage and the immediate continuation/restoration of that protection. The existence of this emergency proceeding is material evidence that my health-insurance coverage was not functioning normally during the very period in which serious oncological findings required immediate investigation and treatment. The documentary record submitted by me further identifies the 2019 hospital treatment, the Elisabeth Klinik documentation, the suspected Kaposi sarcoma/cancer findings and the associated unresolved cost and insurance issues. This chronology is therefore decisive. During the period in which the oncological disease was being investigated, my AOK health-insurance coverage had been interrupted, suspended or otherwise placed in a status that prevented normal access to medical investigation and treatment. During this same period I was unable to obtain the necessary continuation of investigation and treatment in approximately six to seven hospitals. The subsequent judicial proceeding, S 56 KR 923/19 ER, seeking immediate continuation/restoration of health-insurance protection constitutes documentary evidence of the insurance problem at precisely that time. The issue is therefore not an abstract allegation that insurance difficulties may have existed: there was an actual emergency social-court proceeding concerning the continuation of my health-insurance protection. The temporal connection is exceptionally serious: the obstruction of normal insurance coverage coincided with the period in which the oncological investigation produced the Kaposi-sarcoma finding/suspicion. Instead of an uninterrupted diagnostic process capable of establishing the nature, extent and progression of the disease, the investigation was interrupted and I was left without the necessary oncological clarification. That unresolved situation has continued for years. For that reason, I specifically requested urgent medical clarification and investigation of this unresolved oncological condition. In particular, I requested that it be established without further delay whether the suspected oncological disease identified in 2019 has progressed during the intervening years, whether and to what extent metastatic disease or other oncological progression is present in my body, and what immediate diagnostic and therapeutic measures are now medically necessary. This request is not theoretical. It concerns an oncological finding that has remained unresolved for years while I have continued to suffer from serious chronic illnesses and while access to effective medical clarification has, according to the documentary record submitted by me, repeatedly been obstructed or left unresolved. The seriousness of this issue is further intensified by the subsequent dental history. From 2021 onward, I have documented the progressive loss of normal chewing function and repeated obstruction, interruption or non-completion of necessary dental treatment. Accordingly, the record placed before the courts concerns two interconnected and potentially life-threatening areas of medical care: an unresolved oncological finding dating from 2019 and, from 2021 onward, the progressive loss of normal chewing function and the continuing failure to secure complete and functional dental treatment. I have therefore requested that the courts examine the conduct and status of AOK not merely in relation to individual dental invoices, but in relation to the broader question of whether restrictions placed on my health-insurance coverage have prevented or materially obstructed access to medically necessary diagnosis and treatment. This question extends substantially further back than 2019. In my submissions I have stated that the incorrect or restricted handling of my health-insurance status has existed since 2006 and has repeatedly been brought to the attention of AOK and other responsible persons. I have repeatedly demanded clarification and correction of that status. This is not a newly created argument arising from the present dental dispute. It is a long-standing insurance-status dispute which, according to my submissions, has affected my access to ordinary medical care for many years. The documentary record submitted to the Sozialgericht also contains my statements concerning information received directly from AOK personnel that my insurance data/status had not been correctly maintained. Earlier AOK documentation available to me referred to coverage in terms associated with “Notfall” — emergency or acute treatment — rather than unrestricted ordinary insurance use. The same insurance-status problem was repeatedly raised in communications by my legal representative/betreuer, Levent Göktekin. His correspondence with AOK demonstrates repeated attempts to obtain clarification and correction rather than a single isolated inquiry. For example, in January 2023 he expressly informed AOK that the reverse side of my health-insurance card had not been completed and asked AOK to explain why and to correct the data; after receiving no response, he sent a further reminder in February 2023. A further part of this request concerns the historical status of my health-insurance coverage. In the proceedings before the Sozialgericht, I requested investigation of why, despite having permanent residence in Germany since the relevant period identified in my submissions, my insurance coverage has, according to the records and information available to me, been treated in a restricted manner resembling coverage limited to acute or emergency treatment, and why I have not been able to use my health-insurance coverage outside Germany in the manner that should ordinarily be available where the applicable statutory and European requirements are fulfilled. This continuing status problem was again expressly placed before the Sozialgericht Berlin in 2026. In my urgent application I informed the court that my AOK insurance data had been incorrectly maintained for years despite my permanent residence status and despite repeated requests for correction. The issue was raised again in July 2026, when I requested judicial investigation of whether AOK’s internal system contained restrictions, special status entries, blocking markers, individual processing instructions or other entries capable of affecting access to hospitals, dentists, doctors or other treatment providers. I also expressly requested investigation and correction of the restrictions affecting my European health-insurance protection and EHIC. I specifically requested clarification of when, by whom, on what legal basis, and through which administrative decision any such restriction was entered or maintained; whether my residence and insurance status were recorded correctly; what consequences those restrictions had for my access to treatment inside Germany; and on what legal basis access to health-insurance benefits in other European countries was restricted or unavailable despite my permanent residence status in Germany. The central evidentiary question is therefore straightforward and must be answered from AOK’s own complete internal records: what precise insurance status has been assigned to me since 2006; which restrictions, blocking entries, special markers or individual processing instructions have existed; who entered or maintained them; on what legal authority; when they were changed; and what effect they had upon my ability to receive treatment in Germany and to exercise European health-insurance rights. The complete internal AOK record is necessary because this question cannot be answered merely from individual invoices or isolated dental-treatment plans. These insurance questions cannot be separated from the medical consequences. The submitted record raises the question of whether restrictions or administrative handling of my insurance contributed first to the failure to obtain timely oncological clarification after the 2019 Kaposi-sarcoma suspicion and later to the prolonged failure to restore my basic chewing function through necessary dental treatment. The subsequent dental proceedings demonstrate why this broader investigation is indispensable. In the Sozialgericht proceedings, the AOK relied upon endodontic treatment of teeth 25, 34 and 43 as a prerequisite for the planned treatment. Yet AOK did not pay the approximately EUR 450 required for those treatments; I paid that amount myself and submitted evidence of payment to the court. After I had personally financed and completed the treatment that had been invoked as an obstacle, the broader treatment was still not secured. My submission of 20 May 2026 expressly described this sequence: a treatment step was relied upon as a prerequisite for non-continuation, but the insurer did not itself assume the costs necessary to remove that prerequisite. This is reinforced by my submission of 5 May 2026, which recorded the treatment dates of 7 April, 9 April and 28 April 2026 and expressly stated that AOK had, up to that point, assumed none of the costs. AOK’s own submission of 8 May subsequently acknowledged that the endodontic treatment had apparently been carried out and then stated that a new electronic Heil- und Kostenplan should be submitted and subjected to further review. Thus, after the previously invoked treatment obstacle had been removed, the process did not result in immediate completion of the necessary overall treatment; a new procedural requirement was placed in the sequence. The record also shows that I expressly opposed termination of the proceedings. On 23 March 2026 I stated that the proceeding was neither completed nor devoid of purpose and expressly objected to its intended termination. I described repeated treatment plans, years of delay, deterioration of my health and the transfer of necessary treatment costs onto me. On 27 April I again explained that the recommendation to terminate or withdraw the proceeding rested on the assumption that treatment was proceeding properly and sufficiently, while I documented continuing deterioration, additional broken teeth and continuing inability to obtain the necessary treatment. The later record makes the sequence even more serious. By 28 May 2026, I informed the Sozialgericht that a dental appointment had been made conditional on my personally bringing EUR 1,575, although no prior written Heil- und Kostenplan, comprehensible written cost statement or clear explanation had been provided to me establishing why I personally had to pay that amount. I asked the court to establish why that demand was directed at me rather than being clarified with AOK and to investigate the relationship between the continuing treatment interruption, cost responsibility and the repeated withdrawal or non-continuation of treatment. The combined sequence is therefore one of the most serious matters requiring investigation in these proceedings: a documented oncological suspicion arose in 2019; the necessary subsequent clarification remained unresolved; my health-insurance status and access to treatment became a continuing subject of dispute; from 2021 onward I additionally lost normal chewing function and necessary dental treatment repeatedly failed to reach completion; and, despite repeated applications and evidentiary requests, my present oncological status remains unknown. Taken together, I submit that these are not separate and unrelated administrative incidents. I have asked the courts to investigate a continuous sequence: a disputed and allegedly incorrectly restricted insurance status extending back to 2006; an acute insurance interruption/restriction during the critical oncological period in 2019; emergency proceedings before the Sozialgericht Berlin under S 56 KR 923/19 ER; failure to complete the necessary oncological clarification; repeated treatment and cost disputes from 2021 onward; the progressive destruction and loss of chewing function; treatment conditions that I was required to finance personally; and continued interruption of definitive treatment even after I personally removed conditions that had been relied upon as obstacles. For these reasons, I have demanded urgent and independent medical clarification of my current oncological condition, including investigation of whether the disease suspected in 2019 has progressed or metastasized during the intervening years, together with a complete judicial investigation of the history, legal basis and medical consequences of the restrictions affecting my health-insurance coverage. These issues concern not merely reimbursement or administrative formalities, but the protection of life, physical integrity, access to medically necessary treatment, and effective judicial protection against potentially irreversible harm. I have therefore demanded that AOK’s complete historical and current insurance records, internal system entries, status codes, blocking or special markers, communications, processing instructions and relevant administrative decisions be disclosed and judicially examined, and that the connection between those insurance restrictions and the documented medical consequences be investigated rather than reduced to isolated reimbursement questions. The unresolved 2019 oncological finding, the emergency insurance proceeding S 56 KR 923/19 ER, the long-standing disputed insurance status, the subsequent destruction of chewing function and the continuing absence of definitive oncological clarification form one evidentiary chronology that requires full investigation. The Gravity of the Case and Why This Folder Has Been Created The 37-page appeal does not present this matter as an issue concerning the cosmetic appearance of teeth. The documentary record describes years during which normal chewing has not been possible, continuing medical problems, implantological complications, repeated interruption of treatment, successive loss of treatment opportunities, and the occurrence of all of this against the background of a serious overall health condition. The appeal does not state that a final criminal judgment has already established that a specific person intentionally caused a fatal outcome. What it does establish and place before the court is a documented sequence in which necessary medical and dental care remained blocked, interrupted or incomplete over a prolonged period despite repeated warnings, applications and evidentiary requests, creating an objectively serious risk to health and physical integrity. The appeal therefore invokes the State’s obligation to provide timely and effective judicial protection against continuing and potentially irreversible harm. The final part of the appeal expressly records that I have not passively waited since March 2026. I repeatedly submitted written applications. I documented the medical course of events. I identified the treating doctors. I submitted, or offered to submit, payment evidence, photographs, videos and X-ray material. I submitted the Heil- und Kostenpläne. I requested the AOK files. I requested examination of witnesses. I requested clarification of my health-insurance status. I repeatedly requested an independent expert examination. Yet, by the date of the appeal, I still had no functional, safe and completed comprehensive dental treatment. This is precisely why this folder has been created: so that the reader does not see only the final decision of the Sozialgericht Berlin in isolation, but can examine together the medical dangers repeatedly brought before the court during the preceding months; the financial contradictions; the successive withdrawal of treating doctors; the unresolved questions concerning AOK and other payments; the repeated demands for an independent expert examination; the objective medical documentation; and the manner in which the Sozialgericht dealt with all of these matters before issuing its decision. The case now pending before the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg under No. L 1 KR 417/26 ER therefore constitutes the new appellate stage in which this 37-page complaint, the documentary record, the attached medical and photographic evidence, the unresolved evidentiary questions, and the serious allegations arising from the preceding Sozialgericht proceedings are placed before the higher judicial instance for examination.