The Supreme Court (TS) determines that when permanent disability is recognized in a ruling after having been denied by the National Social Security Institute (INSS), the economic effects of the pension begin on the date on which the ruling considers the disabling limitations to be accredited, and not on the date of the opinion-proposal that first examined the worker. The doctrine applies when the ailments have appeared or have worsened after the negative resolution.
The High Court, in its ruling of April 16, 2026 (available in the Judiciary), upholds the appeal for the unification of doctrine presented by the INSS and the General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS) against a ruling by the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Cantabria that had backdated the collection to December 22, 2021, date of the first ruling of the Disability Assessment Team (EVI).
Justice forces Social Security to give a pension of 1,147.04 euros for absolute permanent disability to a management secretary with ‘failed back syndrome’
It’s official: the Supreme Court confirms that the subsidy for those over 52 years of age and the total permanent disability pension can be collected with the same contributions
The litigation affects a self-employed mechanic from Cantabria who was denied benefits by Social Security in December 2021, understanding that his knee ailments and an anxious-depressive condition were not enough to recognize any degree of disability. Almost a year later, a second EVI report on November 28, 2022 confirmed Parkinson’s disease associated with tremor and bilateral gonarthrosis. Based on this situation, the Social Court number 4 of Santander declared him in absolute permanent disability derived from a common illness and set the economic effects on November 30, 2022.
The TSJ of Cantabria later upheld the worker’s appeal and moved the date to the first ruling, applying the classic scheme of the causative event. The Supreme Court overturns that sentence and restores the date that the trial court had set.
Three possible dates and prevalence of LGSS
The ruling proposes three options to determine the economic effects: that of exhaustion of the previous temporary disability, that of EVI report-proposal and the verification of disabling limitations. The first two are based on article 13.2 of the Order of January 18, 1996, while the third derives from article 193.1 of the General Social Security Law (LGSS).
The Supreme Court concludes that article 193.1 of the LGSS prevails due to normative hierarchy, as it is the precept that defines the substantive right to the benefit. It maintains that the provisions of the 1996 Order “are limited to developing secondary aspects for its recognition”, so they cannot be imposed on the higher-ranking norm that supports the incapacity.
The court also specifies that the date of verification is not equivalent to the day of the oral trial, but to the day on which the ruling understands that the limitations that cause the recognized degree of incapacity have been proven. Under this criterion, the collection is linked to the medical moment, not the procedural one, since delays in social jurisdiction do not alter the date.
Also applicable to change of grade
Regarding this doctrine there are two scenarios. The first, when the administrative resolution denies the disability and the sentence recognizes it in any of its degrees (total, absolute or great disability). The second, when the INSS recognizes a degree and the subsequent sentence raises it to a higher one. In both cases, the date of economic effects will be the one that the sentence identifies as the moment in which the ailments reached a disabling entity.
However, the high court consequently rejects the worker’s appeal, confirms the ruling of the Santander Social Court and resolves without imposing costs on any of the parties.