The fall of a remote worker at home is declared an accident at work

Labor court number 3 in Santander announced accident at work a fall at the home of a remote worker who took a break from work to fetch water, tripped, fell to the ground and cut his hand on the door glass. In a ruling collected by Europa Press, which can be appealed before the Supreme Court of Justice of Cantabria, the judge supports the request of a worker who is still on leave due to an accident not related to work, because it was not recognized as work.

The head of the court understands that the incident happened “on time and at the workplace” and that “if it had happened in the company, there would not even be a court file related to it, there would be no doubt”. As it unfolded in the worker’s home, both the defendant and op National Institute for Social Security (INSS) claim that it was not proven that he was on break and that it could have happened because he was doing housework.

However, the judge points out that “the defendant’s criteria would be divided if the fall occurred outside of working hours, but certainly if the fall occurred in the middle of the working day.” “The fact that the worker went to get water or whatever,” he continues, “does not obscure the stubborn reality that he fell in the middle of the workday,” he states in his ruling.

And he adds that “it is not so relevant that it was in the middle of a break, because if he went to the toilet, the legal answer would be the same, unless you think that a remote worker does not go to the bathroom for six hours straight.” In short, according to the verdict, “it is not possible to make a remote worker worse than a regular worker”.

At the end, the judge states that the plaintiff always stuck to the same version and that the computer records of his work activities indicate that he provided services, except for a short break he took at 7:36 p.m. After the fall, an ambulance was called, which arrived at 7:49 p.m. to transfer him to the hospital, where he was treated for a cut on the palm of his hand.

Lumbago

Another punishment, in this case of the Basque court, was also recognized as an accident at work a Lumbago it results from overexertion withdrawal in the workplace, as reported yesterday CC.OO.which called on associations to correct their way of dealing with this type of pathology caused by work activity.

In a statement collected by Efe, the union explains that the Social Court No. 2 of San Sebastián gave reasons in its lawsuit against the UTE Donostialde worker, who was hired by the Provincial Council of Guipúzco for road maintenance.

In November 2021, the employee suffered a lumbar sprain when he overexerted himself while moving one of the road block signs, weighing around 20 kilograms, and was eventually diagnosed with lower back pain. The union decries that joint Asepeyo, the entity responsible for managing the company’s occupational contingencies, claimed that it was not an occupational accident since there were no traumatic injuries sustained on the job. In addition, they claimed that there was a previous degenerative pathology.

From CC.OO. They point out that, on the contrary, the sentence recognizes that the jerk produced when force is applied to move the sign is a “sufficient mechanism of injury” even in the absence of traumatic injury. On the other hand, it was established that, based on the current legislation and in the case of previous degenerative pathology, previously suffered diseases or deficiencies “which are aggravated as a consequence of the constitutive injury of the accident” must be considered as the work of the accident.

For the person in charge of health at work in the Commissions in the Basque Country, Alfonso Ríos, this sentence is of “great importance”, because it includes, in a combined way, “two arguments that simultaneously destroy the two assumptions that he jointly tried to defend, such as the absence of traumatic injuries [golpe, caída o similar] and the existence of a previous illness”.

The trade union official celebrates that the mutual “arguments are running out” and “increasingly questioning each other in the desire to hide the pathologies that originate in the working conditions”. For this reason, they encourage these companies to “focus their efforts on treating people who suffer accidents at work instead of strategies to avoid paying them financial compensation.”