The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has confirmed the denial of the permanent disability pension to an electrician who suffered a stroke and has been diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome. He claimed that his physical limitations prevented him from performing high-risk or high-risk tasks, but the court considers that a sufficient functional impairment has not been demonstrated to disqualify him from the fundamental tasks of his profession.
It was in July 2022 when the worker suffered a heart attack, but he requested that he be recognized as having a total permanent disability for his profession with effect from April 28, 2023, which is when he was fired after being declared “unfit” by the prevention service.
Previously, both the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) in the administrative process and the Social Court No. 34 of Madrid in the first instance, had rejected his claim in order to collect it, arguing that his ailments (the cerebral infarction and the high suspicion of antiphospholipid syndrome) did not reach a sufficient degree of decrease in his work capacity to constitute disability.
The worker appeals the sentence
Not satisfied with the lower court ruling, the worker filed a petition before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid. In this, he requested that the account of the events be altered to include the conclusions of a private expert report prepared by a doctor and the details of the risk prevention service certificate.
His objective was for the court to expressly recognize that he had severe functional limitations that prevented him from working at heights, climbing scaffolding or ladders, and handling heavy machinery due to a high risk of falls.
Likewise, he alleged the violation of articles 193 and 194 of the General Social Security Law (LGSS), which regulate the requirements and degrees of permanent disability.
The TSJ denies total permanent disability
The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid refused to modify the proven facts, explaining that the joint evaluation of the evidence corresponds solely and exclusively to the Magistrate of the Court that held the initial trial. In this sense, they pointed out that the employee tried to replace the judge’s objective and impartial conclusion with his own subjective and interested assessment supported by a particular expert opinion.
Jurisprudence establishes that, when faced with contradictory medical reports, there is no reason to give more value to individual opinions than to official ones (such as those of the Disability Assessment Team or public health), since the latter enjoy a greater presumption of objectivity and impartiality.
In relation to this, the TSJ clarified that the certificate that declared the electrician “unfit” is not a medical report, but rather an evaluation of the worker’s accommodation for a specific job. Thus, he explained that “not suitable” for a specific position in a company does not automatically equate to being incapable of an entire profession or general trade.
Since the modification of the evidence was not accepted, and given that the proven facts did not show any functional or organic limitation derived from the pathologies, the court stated that the conclusion was “unavoidable”: without limitations in work capacity, there cannot be a permanent disability.
The TSJ of Madrid warned that granting incapacity based on the serious limitations that the worker describes in his appeal, but which have not been judicially considered proven, would mean incurring the vice of “begging the question” (assuming as true what precisely needs to be proven). For this reason, it dismissed the employee’s appeal and confirmed that he did not meet the conditions to be a beneficiary of a total permanent disability pension.
The sentence was not final and an appeal could be filed against it for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.