A domestic worker obtains a total permanent disability pension for her lower back pain after Social Security denied her several times

A domestic worker obtains a total permanent disability pension for her lower back pain after Social Security denied her several times

The Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria has recognized a total permanent disability pension to a domestic worker and home help worker for the lumbar pathologies she suffers from, a consequence of spinal surgery with delayed consolidation and chronic pain. Contrary to what the National Social Security Institute (INSS) defended, the court considers that these injuries prevent him from carrying out the fundamental tasks of his profession, such as making beds, mopping floors or carrying buckets, since he was medically advised against making efforts or maintaining postures that required constant flexion of the back.

The conflict arose when, in May 2025, the INSS denied the worker recognition of permanent disability, alleging that her injuries did not reach a sufficient degree of diminishment of her work capacity. The worker’s clinical picture is mainly marked by pathologies in the lumbar region. Specifically, she suffers from intervertebral disc displacement and disc herniation and, although she underwent surgery in February 2024 (L4-L5 laminectomy and transpedicular arthrodesis), the evolution was unfavorable, presenting delayed consolidation or pseudoarthrosis.

In addition, medical tests revealed chronic low back pain, bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy, and very limited lumbar flexion due to pain. Because of this, strict medical recommendations included maintaining a “wait-and-see attitude,” not exerting yourself, avoiding prolonged standing and sitting, and not adopting positions that increase symptoms.

It should be noted that Social Security rejected her request to receive the pension at various times: the first denial of permanent disability was in July 2019. Years later, the INSS denied her request again through a resolution on May 23, 2025. And, finally, the entity also rejected the previous claim filed by the worker, which forced her to finally go to court.

The case goes to court

The Social Court number 4 of Santander ruled in favor of the worker, declaring her in a situation of total permanent disability for her usual profession and condemning the Social Security to pay her a monthly pension equivalent to 55% of her regulatory base (187.61 euros), with retroactive economic effects from May 23, 2025.

The Social Security, not satisfied with the sentence, appealed and presented an appeal before the Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria. Their main argument was that, although the profession of domestic worker requires standing and manipulation, the worker’s lumbar pathology was of a “moderate” nature and only affected a segment of the spinal column, so it was not of sufficient severity required by law to grant disability.

The TSJ of Cantabria confirms the total permanent disability

The Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria rejected the position of Social Security, based on the direct relationship between the physical limitations of the worker and the demands of her job. The court recalled that total permanent disability requires that the anatomical or functional reductions be serious and foreseeably definitive, disabling the worker for all or the fundamental tasks of his profession.

In this sense, the TSJ reasoned that the fundamental tasks of a domestic worker include “making beds, mopping floors, carrying buckets and a vacuum cleaner, cleaning windows, etc.” Given that all of these activities require constant flexion and extension of the lower back, and that the plaintiff is medically prescribed to avoid straining and forced postures, it concludes that it is evident that the worker is unable to perform her job.

Consequently, the TSJ of Cantabria dismissed the appeal filed by the INSS and fully confirmed the ruling of the Social Court, consolidating the worker’s right to receive the pension for total permanent disability. An appeal could be filed against this resolution for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.