Employment law
Sections
Highlight
Sections
Highlight
A man who worked for a homeowners' association from 9am to 1pm and then from 4.30pm to 8.30pm was on his way to work on the day when he suffered a fatal heart attack at a metro station in Madrid. The time of his death was 5.15pm. This circumstance was not questioned in the trial that the family had to attend in order to claim that the heart attack should be considered a work-related accident as he was on his way to work.
This, however, has been rejected by the courts in a ruling issued by the Madrid High Court of Justice, which means that the widow of the deceased has ended up receiving a widow's pension for a common illness, which is lower than what she would receive if the death had been an accident at work.
The court has agreed with Spain's INSS national institute of social security, which ruled that "the company had arranged coverage of the contingency with the Asepeyo mutual insurance company". It also ruled that "there was no work-related nexus that triggered the crisis that led to the death". According to the mutual insurance company, "the onset of the illness occurred outside the time and place of work" and, furthermore, "without any external agent to provoke it".
Not satisfied, the widow took legal action to try to change her pension to the result of an accident at work and not a common illness. She sued the INSS, the General Treasury of the Social Security, the employer and the mutual insurance company. However, both at first instance and now the Madrid High Court of Justice have ruled against the plaintiff.
According to the ruling, "there is no evidence that any event occurred on the way from home to work that could have acted as a triggering factor for the crisis that led to the death; nor that his serious heart problem had its origin in efforts or tensions that occurred in the execution of the same; or that the first symptoms had already appeared that same day at work, for example, in the morning, or even days before".
For the judges, an accident suffered at work is limited to accidents in the strict sense, that is, "to sudden and violent injuries produced by an external agent" and not to illnesses or death from external factors. For illnesses that manifest themselves on the journey from home to work, the ruling states, "the classification as accidents at work depends on a proven causal relationship with the work...".
Therefore, they concluded, "since the presumption of employment is inapplicable, the plaintiff has not provided any evidence to establish the causal link between his unfortunate death and the parallel occurrence of an accident at work".
Publicidad
Publicidad
Publicidad
Publicidad
Esta funcionalidad es exclusiva para suscriptores.
Reporta un error en esta noticia
Comentar es una ventaja exclusiva para registrados
¿Ya eres registrado?
Inicia sesiónNecesitas ser suscriptor para poder votar.