The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has ruled in favor of the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) to deny permanent disability to a 62-year-old computer scientist who was affected by colon cancer with lung metastasis, a myocardial infarction and several aneurysms, understanding that his ailments do not prevent him from carrying out the essential tasks of his profession. That is, the Court explained that despite the severity of the pathologies, the worker maintains sufficient functional capacity to carry out a sedentary job, since it was of low physical demand.
The dispute begins when this worker, who is a computer scientist, begins a medical leave due to temporary disability because doctors diagnosed him with sigmoid adenocarcinoma (type of cancer), which required surgery and subsequent follow-up by oncology. Despite treatment, he did not improve and subsequently had an acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease and several aneurysms, for which he remained on medical leave for a long period.
You may be interested
Table with the increase in pensions for 2026: this is how the pension would look depending on your salary
Pablo Ródenas, lawyer: “When you reach 18 months of temporary disability, Social Security has to make a move, and there are only three ways out”
After exhausting the maximum time of temporary disability, Social Security began the process to assess whether permanent disability corresponded or not, this being denied on the understanding that “the injuries suffered do not reach a sufficient degree for this.”
Despite his claim, Social Security maintained its position of not granting disability, so this man decided to go to court. Thus, in the Social Court No. 19 of Madrid I dismissed his claim, explaining that there were no serious limitations that prevented him from carrying out his work. Even though he was not satisfied, he decided to go to the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJ), which also proceeded to agree with Social Security.
He was not “limited” to his IT profession
In his appeal, the worker alleged that his ailments (making special reference to cancer with metastasis and cardiovascular problems) caused him “fatigue and dyspnea during ambulation and climbing ramps and/or a flight of stairs, respiratory difficulty with usual activity…”, according to the expert report provided. Despite this, the Court explained that the modification of the proven facts in a request for supplication can only be carried out when there is “a radically exclusive, forceful and unquestionable effectiveness”, which was not the case in this case.
Even so, they explained that the computer science profession “has reduced physical demands” and furthermore, that the medical reports did not prove a deterioration. It was also added that the patient was “stable with moderate sports activity, with no changes compared to the background.” Therefore, the court understood that there were no limitations that would prevent the development of a profession with such moderate demands.
Neither total nor absolute permanent disability
In this case, the key to why permanent disability was denied, despite having cancer and suffering a heart attack, is that these diseases did not nullify the ability to work as a computer scientist, and this is very important.
Permanent disability is not a benefit that is granted because of having a disability, but rather because of how it limits the worker in their profession. Hence the fact that the total degree exists, for “the usual profession”; the absolute, “for any type of profession”; or severe disability, when the help of another person is also needed for the most basic acts of daily life.
Therefore, in this case neither absolute nor total permanent disability was appropriate, since the computer scientist could continue to carry out his profession “without the existence of relevant limitations on the intellectual level being duly accredited either.” Thus, and for everything explained, he was not entitled to the benefit, since we must understand that the existence of serious illnesses is not enough, but a real and definitive loss of work capacity must be demonstrated.