A woman, a cleaner by profession and diagnosed with fibromyalgia, hepatitis and a depressive disorder, has had her request for absolute permanent disability denied after the court found that there is no real worsening of her state of health, a criterion that has been confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia. The Chamber explains that, although in 2021 he was recognized as having a total disability due, fundamentally, to his psychopathological problems, his current clinical situation does not justify raising that degree.
According to the TSJ ruling, the worker was judicially recognized as having total permanent incapacity for her usual profession in 2021. Years later, the woman filed a review file for aggravation, but Social Security decided at the end of 2023 not to review the degree, arguing that the consequences she presented constituted the same incapacitation.
The affected person submitted a prior claim and, after it was rejected, went to court to claim absolute relief, arguing that she could no longer carry out any work activity.
The worker appealed to have her absolute permanent disability recognized
In the appeal, the worker’s defense alleged the violation of article 194.5 of the Consolidated Text of the General Social Security Law (TRLGSS) in relation to Transitional Provision 26. His main argument maintained that the ailments and limitations had worsened, “particularly the psychiatric one, to the point that he can no longer carry out any activity, no matter how residual it was valued in terms of normal market competitiveness.”
The key to the case was determining whether there was a real worsening with work relevance. To do this, the Chamber relied on article 200.2 of the General Social Security Law, which governs review files. At this point, the ruling indicates that it is mandatory to carry out “a comparative analysis between the pathologies and limitations that he now suffers and accredits (…) and those that once served to grant him the IPT” to evaluate whether they have experienced any truly significant change.
The TSJ appreciates that the psychopathological clinic does not evoke “criteria of frank severity”
Based on the medical reports, the Court explains that the worker continues to suffer from fibromyalgia, stable Sjögren’s syndrome and autoimmune hepatitis without substantial variation. Although the appellant adds chronic fatigue to her current condition, the ruling equates its effects with those of the fibromyalgia already assessed, and highlights that, in parallel, other previous ailments such as bursitis have disappeared.
Regarding the psychiatric sphere (persistent depressive and personality disorder), the court emphasizes that “he has not experienced any improvement, but neither has he worsened.” With these data, the TSJ concludes that the comparative assessment shows that the injuries suffered by the woman “have not changed substantially” compared to 2021.
The court rejects the plaintiff’s claims, emphasizing the latest report from the Mental Health Center, arguing verbatim that “the psychopathological clinic described in that report does not evoke criteria of frank severity, without prejudice to passive ideas of chronic death and overingestion of medications with evasive purposes that are also already included in the original sentence.” The magistrate adds that there is also “no hospital admission in recent years nor a torpid psychofunctional evolution.”
The ruling emphasizes that, although the plaintiff is incapacitated for her difficult profession as a cleaner, “there is no evidence that she has any more serious limitations than those she had in 2021”, so by retaining “the same functional and residual capacity that she had then, the degree of permanent disability that she claims cannot be recognized.”
For all these reasons, the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia rejects the worker’s appeal and confirms the ruling of the Social Court number 8 of Barcelona, keeping the review intact. The resolution does not impose costs and there is an appeal against it for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.