Can an Occupational Disease Be Counted Towards Preferential Pension Service?
After working for a considerable period as a foundry worker at a plastics plant, a man applied to the Pension Fund of Ukraine for an old-age pension on preferential terms. In addition to the information contained in his employment record book, he submitted various supporting documents, including a certificate from a regional clinical hospital (tuberculosis dispensary) confirming that he had been registered with the medical institution for six years.
A period during which an employee suffers from an occupational disease may, subject to the requirements established by law, be relevant when calculating preferential service. An occupational disease is a disease whose occurrence is causally connected with the employee’s work and exposure to harmful or hazardous working conditions.
The man therefore argued that the six-year period of illness should be added to the period during which he had worked as a foundry worker. In his view, these periods together provided him with sufficient preferential service to qualify for a pension on preferential terms.
However, the Pension Fund refused to grant him the preferential pension, concluding that he did not have the required length of preferential service.
Believing that his pension rights had been violated, the man challenged the Pension Fund’s decision before the court.
The court of first instance upheld his claim. The appellate court subsequently reversed that decision and dismissed the claim. The claimant therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court emphasised an important distinction between the existence of a disease and the legal recognition of that disease as occupational.
The mere fact that a person suffered from a particular illness while working under harmful or hazardous conditions does not automatically establish that the illness was caused by that work.
To establish whether a disease is occupational, the procedure prescribed by law must be followed. In particular, the relevant competent medical and expert bodies must assess the circumstances and establish a causal connection between the employee’s disease and the harmful or hazardous working conditions.
The Supreme Court also noted that employers are required to maintain appropriate records of occupational diseases affecting their employees in accordance with the applicable legislation.
In the case under consideration, the certificate issued by the regional clinical hospital merely confirmed that the claimant had been registered with the medical institution for a period of six years.
However, this certificate did not establish that the claimant’s illness was an occupational disease or that it had been caused by his work as a foundry worker under harmful working conditions.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that a medical certificate confirming the existence or duration of an illness is not, by itself, sufficient evidence of an occupational disease.
The decisive issue is whether there is proper evidence establishing the causal relationship between the disease and the person’s working conditions.
Therefore, if a person seeks to have a period of illness counted towards preferential service on the basis that the illness was occupational, it is necessary to provide documentation issued in accordance with the legally established procedure confirming the occupational nature of the disease.
To summarise, the existence of an illness alone is insufficient for the relevant period to be counted towards preferential service. The occupational nature of the disease and its causal connection with harmful or hazardous working conditions must be properly established by the competent medical and expert authorities. Ordinary medical certificates that merely confirm treatment, diagnosis or registration with a healthcare institution do not, by themselves, establish such a causal connection.
