A domestic worker who suffered from fibromyalgia and widespread pain has been denied permanent disability. The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia has ruled in favor of Social Security, stating that the worker did not accredit the “degree” required to access this type of pension, since it had limitations only “for tasks with very high physical requirements”, which does not imply, in itself, being disqualified for the essential functions of the usual profession.
Apparently this woman applied for permanent disability pension to Social Security, but it was denied due to “lack of degree”, according to the Disability Assessment Team (EVI). According to the medical reports provided, she had neck pain, low back pain and fibromyalgic syndrome, which establish a limitation for tasks with “very high physical requirements” (this part is key in the sentence).
For this reason, the worker went to the Social Courts, her claim was dismissed, so she had to file a petition before the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, alleging that her ailments prevented her from working in the domestic sphere normally. That is, she requested total disability, which disqualifies her from her usual job as a domestic worker, but opening up the possibility that she could continue working in another job compatible with her limitations.
Despite this, the court explains that the objective evidence does not support a functional disability such as that claimed by the plaintiff and cites a key phrase from the forensic report: “There is a dissociation between what the plaintiff reported… and the objective evidence.”
It was limited to “very high physical requirement” efforts.
The worker’s appeal sought to maintain that she was limited to “high” physical requirements and that, therefore, she could not perform the tasks inherent to domestic employment. However, the TSJ explains that the ruling in the case does not speak of “high” requirements in general, but rather of “very high physical requirements.” And that change of scale, for the Chamber, alters everything.
Furthermore, the court puts the coroner’s report in context. This report points out limitations for demanding efforts, yes, but it does so with caution and in a very specific scenario, especially “if they are maintained over time” and if they affect the cervical, lumbar area and knees. That is to say, it does not describe a global and permanent impossibility for any performance inherent to the profession, but rather restrictions linked to peaks of demand or prolonged efforts.
Why the court understands that she can continue working as a domestic worker
The key to this ruling is that the TSJ based its decision on the Social Security Professional Assessment Guide to describe the typical biomechanical load of the occupation. For this reason, he ends by saying that the main tasks of household employment tend to be “medium to high intensity” demanding, but not “very high” intensity. Therefore, if what is accredited is a limitation for “very high” requirements, the usual profession is not automatically excluded.
In fact, the Court reports that “it cannot be agreed that the tasks of the profession… entail high and sustained (continuous) requirements” in the areas that the appellant considers especially affected (cervical, lumbar and knees). Therefore, its limitations do not fit into the definition of total permanent disability, because it has not been proven that the consequences prevent carrying out the usual profession with the minimum continuity and effectiveness required.