The Supreme Court endorses that it is the company, and not Social Security, that has to take care of the medical leave of a worker who suffered a non-work accident, even if the employee was not discharged. In a ruling dated February 21, the social court rejects a company’s appeal against a ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) of May 2020.
The case dates back to 2014, when an employee, who had been working as a salesperson since June of that year, suffered a fracture in September, outside of her working hours, for which she was sick until May 2015. The National Institute of Health The Social Security (INSS) denied the benefit because the employee was not registered or in a similar situation at the time of the events.
The Supreme Court, in a ruling unifying doctrine, has clarified that if in disability benefits (in this case temporary) derived from a non-work accident, when the employer fails to comply with his obligations to register and contribute, the INSS must or must not respond. subsidiarily from the payment (here from the subsidy).
The offending company is insolvent
In the present case, the offending company is insolvent, indicates the supreme, and there is no mutual collaborator that can do so. The INSS denied the temporary disability benefit (IT) because the worker was not registered or in a situation similar to that of discharge on the date of the event that caused the benefit.
The worker requested that the responsibility for paying the financial benefit for his temporary disability, derived from a non-work accident, fall on the employer, with the INSS assuming the subsidiary responsibility. After analyzing the current legislation, the supreme court considers that, if the worker is not registered, “the responsibility for paying the subsidy falls directly and exclusively on the company.”
There is no advance payment obligation for Social Security or for the mutual insurance company, if it is the latter that covers such contingencies in the company, since in such case the principle of automaticity of benefits does not govern, the ruling clarifies. Nor does any subsidiary liability arise for the INSS, or the mutual insurance company, if applicable, due to employer insolvency.
