Palencia
The Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, based in Valladolid, has issued a sentence confirming as an accident at the death of a Carrefour worker who suffered a heart attack when he was in rest time. The resolution confirms the one issued in the first instance by the Social Court number 1 of Palencia and rejects the resources presented by the Institute and the General Treasury of Social Security and by Mutual Fraternity Meprespa.
The arguments of social security and mutual do not prosper
There is the circumstance that the aforementioned mutual ruled out the consideration of an accident at work because “not to be related to work, since the death occurred as a consequence of a clearly common disease of etiology and not producing in effective time of work does not enjoy a presumption of labor.”
In a very similar line, the social security that maintained before the courts was expressed that “it cannot be established that the labor medical decline, with diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with the result of death, is derived from a professional etiology, since it is not unequivocally accredited that the injury it presents has a relationship of a causal link between the position it performed and the pathology it presented.” In short, Social Security defended that “the process must be considered as derived from a common contingency pathology.”
-The court notes that the zest occurred in a workplace and time of work
However, the court differs from these arguments and gives the reason to the heirs of the deceased, represented by the Palencia lawyer Amaya Rodríguez of the Aphyse lawyers. He maintains the TSJ that “at the time when the heart crisis that determined his obito (about 11.16 hours) was surveyed in the relaxation room of the workplace itself along with other colleagues, enjoying the breakup pause, this is its manifestation was instead and working time.”
The Court is thrown out of jurisprudence to highlight that “the breakdown pause is considered to declare cardiovascular lesion as a work derived from work, which is fully operational for the presumption of labor.”
The pathology of the effort of your work cannot be unlinked
Add the highest court of Castilla y León that “is aimed as an immediate cause, a cardiac arrhythmia and, as a fundamental cause, a base cardiac injury, of which, otherwise, they do not even have a history Extraordinary circumstances, nor is it limited to works with a special component of physical effort, excitement or nerve tension, other relative concepts. “
The TSJ concludes by stating that “to exclude the presumption, proof is required to unequivocally evidence the rupture of the causality relationship between work and the disease, and not produced this must be understood ex lege that the work triggered the morbid process, influencing at least as an adjuncting factor,
