Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Spain, Jerez de la Frontera Labor Court (No. 3), 13 May 2022, Judgement 232/2022

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Spain
Case ID
Judgement 232/2022
Decision date
13 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
Jerez de la Frontera Labor Court (No. 3)
Deciding body (Original)
Juzgado de lo Social No. 3 de Jerez de la Frontera
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Labour Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Industrial relations / Labor law
Further areas addressed
  • Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
  • Use of protection devices
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available on poderjudicial.es

Case analisys

General Summary

The Jerez de la Frontera Labor Court (No. 3) had to decide whether the death of a cleaning service worker from Covid-19 at the Jerez de la Frontera Hospital was, in legal terms, a work accident or not. Given the dates and possible place of contagion, the Court held that there was a strong presumption in favor of it being legally considered a work accident which was not properly disproved by the plaintiffs.

Facts of the case

A cleaning service worker of the Jerez de la Frontera Hospital was diagnosed in March 2020 first with nasopharyngitis and then with Covid-19. He was granted temporary disability to work. He died in April 2020. Social Security considered his death a common contingency (not a work accident) when granting an orphan’s pension to his son. His son then challenged the classification and sought a declaration that his death was a work accident.

Type of measure challenged
Labor law dispute.
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Declaration of an employees’ death as a work accident in order to recalculate the amount of the orphan’s pension given to the son
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The matter at issue was to determine whether the situation that led to the employee’s temporary inability to work derived from a work accident (the claimant’s argument) or from a common illness (the plaintiff’s argument). In this regard, the Court recalled that, according to General Social Security Law, injuries caused to workers during working hours or at their place of work are presumed to be work accidents. It is therefore the plaintiff who should disprove the presumption, which did not happen in this case. The Court explained that the employee worked in the cleaning service of the hospital seven days prior to his first diagnosis with nasopharyngitis. Four days later, the entire dermatology staff was infected with Covid-19. The time frame thus coincided, especially considering that no relatives of the employee were infected with Covid during that same time period. As a consequence, the Court determined that it was highly likely that the infection took place in early March at the hospital, thus his death was considered a work accident.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court determined that the death of the cleaning service worker from Covid-19 should be considered a work accident since the infection was presumed to have occurred during his working hours and at his place of work.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to bodily integrity
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
right to work/right to life (not expressly mentioned)
General principle applied
Rule of law
Author of the case note
Professor Patricia Garcia Majado, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Oviedo
Published by Marco Nicolò on 24 October 2022

More cases from Spain

  • Spain, Constitutional Court, 2 June 2022, Judgment 70/2022
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to an effective remedy
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Galicia High Court of Justice, 23 May 2022, Judgement 198/2022
    Area: Privacy and data protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of information; Right to data protection; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Asturias High Court, 18 April 2022, Judgement 356/2022
    Area: Education
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Lugo Administrative Court (No. 1), 11 February 2022, Judgement 24/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 19 May 2022, Judgment 462/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 22 February 2022, Judgement 168/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Spain

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Spain, Jerez de la Frontera Labor Court (No. 3), 13 May 2022, Judgement 232/2022
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies