The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has just published a sentence in which it agrees with a woman, establishing that the serious injuries suffered during childbirth should be considered as “non-work accident” , and not as “common disease “, as initially established by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS).
This ruling, which highlights the application of the ‘gender perspective’, represents a very important step in the protection of women, in addition to increasing the amount of the subsidy received by the affected person.
Serious birth injuries considered ‘common disease’
As we read in sentence 580/2020 of July 2, 2020, as a result of childbirth, a woman suffered an obstetric tear of the fourth degree , with rupture of the straight mucosa, rupture and separation of the internal and external sphincters, in addition to a traumatic section of the rectovaginal septum. and section of the vaginal wall and extensive ulcerative colitis.
The INSS gave him absolute permanent disability due to “common illness” , with the right to receive an amount of 565.63 euros per month. The woman, however, understood that her injuries were not due to a “common illness” but to a “non-occupational accident”, and as such she resorted.
But although the Social Court No. 3 of León issued a ruling in his favor , the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León upheld the appeal filed by the INSS and the General Treasury of Social Security, which continued to consider that the inability to the woman should be treated as a “common disease” and not as a “non-work accident”, since there was no sudden external action that is typical of the accident.
“The accident is produced by a sudden, violent and external action, while the disease supposes a psycho-physical deterioration developed gradually, which is not due to a sudden and violent action”.
“The Supreme Court understands that, in the case, there was certainly ‘a sudden and violent element’ (the fourth degree obstetric tear suffered) and not ‘a progressive psycho-physical deterioration.’ But the Supreme Court considers that the event did not It can be classified as ‘external’ , in the sense of ‘alien to one’s own person’, which is why it denies that the appellant’s incapacity for the unification of doctrine derives from a non-occupational accident , but instead derives from a common illness ” – then recognized the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León.
Previous sentences
In contrast to this ruling handed down , on May 28, 2013, the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia recognized the “total permanent disability derived from a non-work accident” in a woman who had suffered similar problems during childbirth.
In this sentence the following could be read:
“There can be no doubt that normal childbirth, and the complications that the mother may suffer from it, are included in the maternity benefit, which cannot even be classified as a common disease, much less an accident, but, when childbirth it stops being normal and becomes a dystocic birth, things change “
“From that moment, in order to achieve the expulsion of the child in a natural way, the services that attend the parturient decide to use emergency forceps, suction cups or spatulas, and apart from obtaining the expulsion they cause other injuries that are not their own. that are generated after normal use of these instruments , the process that the mother undergoes cannot be classified as maternity or illness, it is an authentic accident, which only admits the qualification of (non) work, insofar as it is born from a bodily injury, without the intervention of the will of the person causing it, much less of the person who suffers it , in a sudden, sudden and unpredictable way “.
“In short, it is clear that the grade IV perineal tear , and the functional limitations that this has left it, are not the final and fatal consequence of a previous pathological process developed gradually and progressively, but rather the concurrence of a specific cause external, sudden and unforeseen , the event analyzed must be classified as an accident, since it is not normal to suffer this type of injury or sequelae “
The Supreme Court agrees with the woman
Thus, and after analyzing the sentence of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León and comparing it with the one handed down years before by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, the Supreme Court has decided to annul the appeal and confirm the initial sentence of the Court of Justice. Social, arguing that the disability suffered by the woman is not derived from a ‘common disease’ but from a ‘non-work accident’ , with an interpretation from a gender perspective.
The reasons alleged by the Supreme Court have been:
- “What happened in childbirth (…) fits badly with the concept of disease, which supposes a gradual psycho-physical deterioration, which is not due to a sudden and violent action, the latter being what corresponds to the concept of accident. What happened in the appellant’s delivery (…) was not a deterioration that developed gradually , but rather is more similar to the sudden and violent action inherent in the concept of an accident . “
- ” Nor can childbirth be easily assimilated to any other hospital intervention . These interventions are aimed at remedying a threat, already verified or potential, to health that cannot be fully identified or assimilated to pregnancy and childbirth, which are non-pathological natural processes “ .
- “(…) In case the expression of ‘external’ action could generate any doubt, as what happened to the appellant in childbirth could only happen due to her condition as a woman , the gender perspective proclaimed by article 4 of The aforementioned Organic Law 3/2007 (LAW 2543/2007) reinforces the interpretation that the fact should be considered a non-work accident and not a common disease, since only women can find themselves in a situation that is unmatched by any other type of circumstance in which they go to health care “
Now, the woman will have the right to receive a pension of 979.54 euros per month, with the INSS having to pay a pension equivalent to 100%.
Photo | iStock
Via | Legal News
In Babies and More | Macrosomia in the baby: the causes and risks of being born too big, A midwife is on trial for performing an episiotomy after the affected woman refused, They compensate a girl who suffered cerebral palsy due to negligent childbirth with 4.2 million euros, They compensate a woman who lost her baby by not having an emergency cesarean section
