Failure to Process Medication Application
On 19.03.2025
I applied to get reimbursement for medications that I purchased when I was granted Nødhjelp from NAV Sagene
On 24.03.2025
NAV requested the following documents: Oversikt fra Helfo ang status egenandelstak, og Skrive fra legen ang medisiner som ikke er på resept, with a deadline to provide them by 04.04.2025
On 02.04.2025
And before the deadline, I provided NAV with the requested documents
On 10.04.2025
I received a rejection for my medication application, stating that NAV had not received the requested documents.
On 02.05.2025
I've sent them an complaint confirm for them that I've sent them the requested documents before the deadline and they should focus and see them
On 13.05.2025
I received a decision from NAV Sagene rejecting my application for reimbursement of necessary medications.
The rejection was based on the claim that I had already purchased the medications and that my health was stable, thus not meeting the criteria for emergency assistance under Sosialtjenesteloven § 19.
However, this assessment overlooks the following critical points:
1- I was granted Nødhjelp (emergency assistance) during this period under Sosialtjenesteloven § 18, which confirms that I had no money to cover basic expenses such as medication.
2- I borrowed money from friends to cover the cost, only because NAV’s processing time typically causes delays. This does not mean I was not in financial need—it was a temporary solution to access urgent medication while waiting for NAV’s response. This is a common and recognized reality acknowledged in both practice and case law when assessing emergency need and financial hardship.
3. When I bought the medications, I had already been granted Nødhjelp under § 18, confirming my financial need. Borrowing money to cover urgent expenses while waiting for NAV’s processing does not remove that need.
Denying reimbursement on this basis goes against the intent of §§ 18 and 19, which are meant to ensure access to essential care during financial emergencies.
4. NAV failed to consider the total circumstances, including financial hardship and urgency, as required under Forvaltningsloven § 41. There was no individual or fair assessment of my situation.
Conclusion and Concerns
NAV Sagene has claimed they didn't saw the documents that I uploaded to my NAV page and clearly visible, then NAV Sagne ignored that I bought the medication during an approved Nødhjelp period — a time when my financial need was officially recognized.
Borrowing money from friends to afford urgent medication should not disqualify me from reimbursement under Sosialtjenesteloven §§ 18 and 19. But apparently, that detail was easy to overlook.
This raises serious concerns
1- Was the missing documentation a simple oversight or a deliberate obstruction?
2- Has my case been influenced by personal bias, possibly due to being labeled as "rude"?
3- What unwritten rules allow NAV to judge applicants on attitude instead of legal merit?
As outlined on below, It's appears to be a pattern of unjust handling by both NAV Sagene and Statsforvalteren.
I see clear violations of:
Arbeidsmiljøloven §15-14 – Avskjed (Termination without notice)
Forvaltningsloven §6 – Inhabilitet (Conflict of interest)
Forvaltningsloven §17 – Utredningsplikt (Duty to investigate properly)
Sosialtjenesteloven §§ 18 Rett til økonomisk stønad (Right to Financial Assistance)
Sosialtjenesteloven §§ 19 Stønad i særlige tilfeller (Emergency Assistance)
Forvaltningsloven § 41 Ugyldighet (Invalidity Due to Procedural Errors)