Workers compensation for work overload
The TSJ Galicia recognizes to a pediatrician a compensation for the damages and losses derived from the breach of the norm of prevention of labor risks. The pediatrician had reported on several occasions the work overload he suffered, without the company taking any action, which caused several episodes of stress and an IT situation derived from an accident at work.
A pediatrician tells the management of the SERGAS health center where the situation of care overload works, since he had to attend more than 1,300 children a year, and requested that measures be taken to correct it. However, the child care quota increased in the following two years, which led the pediatrician to suffer two episodes of work stress and secondary anxiety.
After these diagnoses, the UPRL declared the worker “fit with limitations” for his usual work. A year later the pediatrician suffered a central serous choroidopathy, a disease associated with stress, which kept him in an IT situation for almost 7 months and was considered judicially derived from an accident at work. After the accident, the occupational risk prevention service carried out a risk assessment but did not analyze the psychosocial risks.
The pediatrician files a lawsuit requesting compensation for damages resulting from non-compliance with the regulations for the prevention of occupational hazards that are dismissed in the first instance. The worker appeals in supplication.
The TSJ Galicia begins remembering that in the processes on responsibilities derived from accidents at work and occupational diseases, it is up to the employer, as a security debtor, to prove that she made use of all the measures at her disposal to avoid or prevent situations of health risk or integrity of those who provide services for her.
In the case analyzed, it is not evident that SERGAS made use of measures aimed at alleviating the care burden on the pediatrician. On the contrary, he adopted an attitude of passivity and if he ignored the requests of the worker who, years ago, had submitted a letter showing the care overload. The passivity of SERGAS also manifests itself in these circumstances:
a) Before the accident that caused the IT occurred, the worker was diagnosed with work stress and secondary anxiety, without the employer adopting measures to alleviate or eliminate the situation;
b) When performing the occupational risk assessment, it did not evaluate the psychosocial risks even when the reports that supported the IT declaration derived from professional contingency show the direct relationship of the pathology and work. In addition, the Occupational Risk Prevention Unit had declared the suitable worker with limitations for his usual work after being diagnosed with work-related stress and secondary anxiety.
Therefore, security measures should have been adopted by the employer, even if not expressly provided, as a result of the application of the rules of diligence and prudence. Therefore, its inactivity and passivity determines the imputation of responsibility for damages. Therefore, it estimates the resource and recognizes compensation of 15,000 euros for the damages suffered by the worker.