The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia has recognized the right of a domestic worker to receive the total permanent disability pension due to the serious ailments she suffers from in the lumbar spine and her heart problems. In addition to working as a domestic worker, she performed duties as a farmer and, contrary to what the National Social Security Institute (INSS) defended, justice has determined that her physical limitations are incompatible with the physical effort required in both professions.
The woman, born in 1959, requested to be the beneficiary of a permanent disability due to her clinical condition. In November 2022, the INSS medical report only recognized mild lumbar limitations after an operation (L4-L5 laminectomy). Accordingly, the Disability Assessment Team (EVI) proposed to Social Security not to classify her as permanently disabled, considering that she did not present anatomical or functional reductions that would reduce or nullify her work capacity.
According to this report, the INSS denied her the requested permanent disability the following month, a decision that the woman claimed, although it was rejected by the organization in May 2023. Once the administrative route had been exhausted, she decided to file a claim through the courts, dissatisfied with the criteria of Social Security.
Claim and real clinical picture of the woman
The affected person presented several subsequent reports from two different hospitals (2023 and 2024) that expanded and detailed the medical condition, adding diabetic neuropathy, coxarthrosis, supraspinatus (shoulder) rupture, generalized osteoarthritis and ventricular dysfunction that requires avoiding intense efforts. In these, there was a limitation to make great efforts and overloads of the spine (spine), which was incompatible with professions that require continuous physical effort, prolonged standing and walking.
Taking into account these multiple pathologies, and the functions of the woman, the Social Court number 2 of Almería declared her the beneficiary of a qualified total permanent disability for her usual profession, condemning the Social Security to pay her a pension of 55% of its regulatory base (305.83 euros) with retroactive effects from November 2022.
Not satisfied with this ruling favorable to the worker, the INSS appealed the sentence, presenting a petition before the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia. In this, he asked to change the description of the profession, to include his work in agriculture, considering it important to evaluate work capacity.
Likewise, they alleged the violation of articles 194.4 and 193.1 of the General Social Security Law, arguing that the woman’s injuries only justified a temporary sick leave and not a permanent disability, since, according to them, they did not nullify her work capacity, as stated in ruling 526/2026.
The TSJ of Andalusia confirms total permanent disability
The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia rejected the INSS arguments based on the joint analysis of the pathologies and the demands of the worker’s professions. This court reasoned that the woman performs two professions (agriculture and cleaning/home care) that required continuous physical effort and, occasionally, overload of the spine.
Taking into account his pathologies, he determined that there was a real limitation for “great efforts and overloads of the spine”, derived from both his heart problem and the traumatological injuries. Thus, since they were unable to perform the fundamental tasks of their professions (which involve continuous standing and ambulation), they concluded that the legal requirement to access total permanent disability was met, regardless of whether they retained residual capacity for other more sedentary professions.
In this way, they dismissed the INSS appeal and confirmed the lower court ruling, recognizing the woman’s total permanent disability for her usual profession with the right to a pension of 55% of her regulatory base (305.83 euros per month) and economic effects from November 29, 2022. This ruling was not final and an appeal could be filed against it for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.