Contracting a viral infection at work is treated as an illness covered by INAIL and proof of the aetiological link can be provided in court by rebuttable presumptions
In its Order no. 29435 of 10 October 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the Palermo Court of Appeal’s ruling and provided a different interpretation of the evidentiary framework in the disputed case.
Facts of the case
The case submitted to the Supreme Court originates from an appeal brought before the Court of Agrigento in first instance and the Court of Appeal of Palermo in second instance by a professional nurse employed by a nursing home, to obtain INAIL coverage which is an allowance in annuity or lump sum under Presidential Decree no. 1124/1965. This was based on an alleged hepatitis C infection contracted during work, assuming that this was due to plausible and prolonged exposure to the relevant pathogens.
The local Court confirmed the Court’s first instance ruling, and initially rejected the worker’s request. Based on the possible multi-factorial origin of the illness, the Court considered that the proof of the work-related cause and harmfulness of the working environment borne by the worker had not been achieved. The Court stated that the assessment should not involve “the causal link of the occupational accident’s pathological effects, but the precise identification of the fact giving rise to the illness.”
The Trial Court added that the claimant had no memory of specific events occurring during work, such as accidental needle punctures. This is because the routine medication and treatment of liver-diseased patients was not sufficient to give entitlement to the protections requested. This evidence cannot benefit the party who made such declarations, and it was nullified by findings made in another case concerning a previous infection with hepatitis B virus, and which required “strict proof of the infectious event during work.”
The Court added that the “report of an examination by the hospital medical committee” established during the proceedings for compensation under Law no. 210/1992, was not relevant because it “expressed an opinion (on the disease occupational origin and exposure to risk) without disclosing the factual elements on which it was based.”
The legal principles referred to by the Court of Cassation
In its order, the Supreme Court overturned the Palermo Court of Appeal’s ruling, and referred to a long-standing and never contradicted case law by which “in compulsory insurance against accidents at work, the action of microbial or viral factors which, by penetrating human organism, alter the anatomo-physiological balance, is treated as an accident. This effect, even if manifested later, must relate to the work performance, even in the absence of a specific injury underlying the infection” and “the proof can be provided in court by rebuttable presumptions” (Court of Cassation labour section ruling no. 7306/2000, Court of Cassation, labour section ruling no. 20941/2004; Court of Cassation, labour section ruling no. 6899/2004).
In this case, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was not always coherent and linear, and referred to the need for a “precise identification of the fact giving rise to the illness.” This strayed from the above case law, wrongly concluding that a “strict proof of the infectious event during work” should have been provided based on the previous Hepatitis B incident.
Continue reading the full version published on Guida al Lavoro of Il Sole 24 Ore.
