The Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria confirmed the right of a janitor with serious disorders, derived from his dependence on substances (alcohol and cocaine), to receive a permanent disability pension absolute of 622.04 euros per month for life (for life). The worker fought to achieve severe disability, but the court did not recognize this highest degree because it did not prove that he needed the assistance of third parties for the essential acts of daily life, a mandatory requirement.
The man, born in 1975, had a dependence on alcohol, with persistent dementia induced by it, and on cocaine, with a psychotic disorder induced by this substance. He also had self-limited digestive bleeding (detected in December 2022), overactive bladder and unspecified vertigo.
You may be interested
Justice denies permanent disability to a 49-year-old administrative woman with migraines and Ménière’s Syndrome and agrees with Social Security
Justice forces Social Security to give a pension of 796.08 euros for permanent disability to a shop assistant with ‘failed back syndrome’
Since the beginning of psychotic symptoms, at the beginning of 2020, he experienced a significant loss of his level of autonomy, presenting affective flattening, apathy, a tendency to inactivity, reduced social contacts and slowed thinking. In his medical history, it was noted that he had been treated by the Addictions Unit (UAD) from 2013 to 2015, and that he had been admitted to an addiction center in Tuñón (2019) and to the Valdecilla Acute Unit (2020).
Since May 2022, he has been admitted to the ASCASAM Center (Cantabrian Association for Mental Health), as a full and permanent place, living under guardianship. A few months before, in January, he was recognized with Degree of Dependency II (moderate) and a Disability of 80% by the ICASS. A report from 2023 established that he had been abstinent for more than a year, but presented a significant extrapyramidal clinical picture (bradypsychia, psychomotor slowing) and emotional flattening.
Social Security initially denied him permanent disability
At first, the National Social Security Institute refused to grant a permanent disability pension to the janitor in any of its degrees. For this reason, the man filed a claim through the courts. The Social Court No. 1 of Santander partially upheld his claim, refusing to grant him severe disability but granting him absolute permanent disability, derived from a common illness, which disqualifies him from any profession.
Consequently, this court sentenced Social Security to pay him a lifetime pension of 100% of its regulatory base, which was 622.04 euros per month, with economic effects from February 24, 2023. The man, however, was still not satisfied, and filed a petition before the Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria to obtain severe disability.
To do so, he requested a review of the proven facts, based on dependency/disability documents and a subsequent report, alleging that he needed to be instigated and supervised for grooming and dressing, requiring very close monitoring for medication (due to misuse or abuse) and to avoid toxic relapses; and that he suffered from parkinsonian syndrome, advanced to the point of causing loss of balance and multiple falls since June 2024, which is why he had been prescribed the use of a walker.
Likewise, he reported a violation of article 194.6 of the General Social Security Law, insisting that the joint assessment of his status (living in a sheltered apartment, the need for control to avoid consumption, and his dependency for basic needs) implied that he requires help from third parties, although this is not constant.
The TSJ of Cantabria refuses to grant him major disability and confirms absolute permanent disability
The Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria dismissed the man’s appeal and confirmed the lower court ruling, ratifying that he deserved a pension for absolute permanent disability but not for severe disability. The court noted that the criterion for granting great disability focuses exclusively on the need for help from third parties for the most essential acts of daily life (dressing, grooming, eating, etc.), derived from definitive ailments.
This concept, they added, is not comparable to the administrative situation of dependency (Grade II) or disability (80%), since dependency and disability are based on other assessment criteria (social, family, economic adaptation) other than those governing professional disability or the need for self-care.
Starting from this basis, they explained that great disability is determined when the person in question cannot meet the essential needs of life and requires the assistance of a third party due to the lack of personal autonomy. These essential acts are those essential for safety, dignity, hygiene and decorum fundamental to human coexistence.
When granting this degree, they also warn that, although jurisprudence accepts that the help is not required to be constant or for all acts, it being sufficient if the impossibility affects only one of them, the help must be necessary and permanent, not merely convenient.
In relation to the case, the TSJ of Cantabria concludes that, although the man suffered from a serious condition (with dependency, psychotic disorder, emotional flattening and bradypsychia), which prevents him from carrying out profitable work activities, the proven facts do not prove that the impairment of his mental faculties is to the extent that the help of third parties for his self-care is necessary, beyond that appropriate to his condition.
Regarding this, they added that he had been abstinent for more than a year and did not present chronic psychotic decompensation that requires constant vigilance to prevent self-harming activities or dangerous/risky situations. Regarding their stay in a supervised apartment, or the difficulty or lack of initiative they may present, they also pointed out that it was insufficient to declare the need for external help for their essential personal self-care.
For all these reasons, they dismissed his appeal and confirmed that he was only deserving of the absolute permanent disability pension. Against this ruling, however, it was possible to file an appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.