The Supreme Court recognizes the right to more compensation for occupational diseases

The Supreme Court has modified its doctrine on compensation for personal injuries, a change that has an impact on the payment of compensation for occupational diseases or exposure to toxic substances. In a ruling dated June 17, the high court allows the application of the traffic accident scale in these cases, resulting in the possibility of higher compensation than the current ones. Although the ruling resolves several specific asbestos claims against Uralita, its application is general: it can apply to any illness contracted in the workplace or through a company's activities.

“The Supreme Court opens the door to fairer compensation for personal injuries in cases other than traffic accidents, allowing the application of the scale of Law 35/2015 [the law on the system for assessing damages caused to people in traffic accidents] as a guiding criterion,” reflects Colectivo Ronda , the labor law firm representing victims of asbestos—a material that caused serious respiratory problems in those who worked with it—in the case analyzed by the full Civil Division of the Supreme Court. “This doctrine also recognizes the compatibility of various avenues for compensation and consolidates the right to full reparation for the damage suffered,” the firm adds.

The Supreme Court explains that, according to the law itself, the criteria established therein are not exclusively applicable to traffic accidents, while emphasizing that they are more "inspiring" for the assessment of damages, since their "purpose is to achieve full compensation for the damages suffered, placing the victim in a position as similar as possible to that which they would have been in had the accident not occurred." Along these lines, the Ronda Collective interprets that, although the high court specifies that this rule is not mandatory outside of traffic, "the scale in force since 2016 is more comprehensive and allows for a more precise and equitable assessment of personal and moral damages."

The Civil Chamber reached this conclusion after analyzing the appeal filed by the Construction Materials Business Corporation (COEMAC, formerly Uralita) —in bankruptcy proceedings—against the ruling of the Provincial Court of Madrid in October 2019, which ordered it to compensate several relatives of asbestos victims. The plaintiffs, according to the ruling, are relatives of employees at the factory, located between the municipalities of Cerdanyola del Vallés and Ripollet (Barcelona). They returned home with their work clothes, where they were shaken out and washed; while others, they claimed, lived for decades near the factory.

The lawsuit, filed in a Madrid court of first instance, combines 14 claims filed by the descendants, who jointly demanded €5.19 million for the harmful effects of inhaling asbestos . The court partially granted the claim in September 2018, which was appealed by COEMAC , which requested that this ruling be revoked, as well as by the family members, who requested that their claim be granted in full. Although the Madrid Court partially ruled in favor of the company, it also ordered some of the plaintiffs to pay additional amounts, leading it to refer the matter to the High Court.

The company disputed the Madrid Court's application of the scale in effect at the time the claims were filed, i.e., the one provided for in the 2015 law, rather than the one in effect at the time the illnesses were diagnosed or the victim died, which in this case was contained in a law passed in 2004 on civil liability and insurance for motor vehicles. The family members and the Ronda Collective argue that the 2015 law is more appropriate because it better guarantees full compensation for damages, given the circumstances.

Change of doctrine

The full Civil Division of the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs' argument, thus shifting its legal doctrine, allowing courts to resort to this scale when requested by those affected by damages resulting from an occupational disease . The key point of the ruling is as follows: "It is appropriate to modify previous legal doctrine to declare that, when requested, the indicative application of the system introduced by Law 35/2015 is appropriate to assess damages caused in areas other than traffic, where application of the scale is not mandatory, even if the events for which the claim is being made took place before the law came into force."

The Supreme Court points out that the reason for resorting to the scale provided for traffic accidents in cases outside this scope is because "it provides assessment criteria that facilitate the justification of the quantification of damages." It explains that "the principle of full reparation justifies compensating for damages not included in the scale" and establishing "corrective criteria that are appropriate to the specific circumstances."

Another point discussed by the company is whether the heirs of those affected by an occupational disease can claim compensation in addition to the compensation due for their own loss. The Supreme Court clarifies that "the bodily injury suffered by the deceased before death, as determined by an expert, may be claimed by the heirs and is compatible with the damage suffered by them as victims of the death."

Along these lines, it recalls that in its September 2012 ruling, it established that "the real extent of the damage suffered by the victim was already perfectly determined through a forensic medical report, so that, regardless of its subsequent quantification, it was transmissible to his heirs, since it is not extinguished by his death." However, it clarifies the compensation that the heirs should receive: if the affected person dies during the procedure, their family members will not be entitled to collect the amount they would have received based on life expectancy, as established by the Madrid Court of Appeal in the appealed ruling. Instead, it must be calculated based on the time elapsed between the diagnosis of the disease and the moment of death.

Compatibility of compensation

"The Supreme Court's decision," adds the Ronda Collective, "is of great significance, since until now, courts were not required to use this scale outside of cases involving traffic accidents, which led to highly unequal assessments and completely disparate criteria in cases like this one, in which damages resulting from an occupational disease are analyzed." From now on, and whenever the affected parties so request, this labor law firm indicates that "the courts may be asked to apply by analogy the more protective and precise provisions incorporated in the new scale, in order to establish fairer and more well-founded compensation, even in circumstances unrelated to traffic."

The firm also emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court recognizing the compatibility between the two forms of compensation: "The compatibility between the two forms of compensation has historically been the subject of litigation and judicial controversy, and often, in the absence of clear doctrinal criteria, many claims were limited by restrictive interpretations by the courts. Now, however, the Supreme Court definitively opens the door to claiming both forms of compensation simultaneously, reinforcing the principle of full reparation for damages."