Analysis of Judgment Cass. civ., Labor Section, Ord. No. 25191 of 2023: Compensation for Occupational Disease

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, No. 25191 of 2023, offers important insights into the topic of differential compensation for occupational diseases. The Court analyzed a case where an employee, A.A., sought compensation due to an aorto-coronary bypass surgery, claiming that his pathology was attributable to his working conditions as a driver.

The Case and the Court of Appeal's Decision

The original case was examined by the Court of Appeal of Messina, which established the causal link between the work activity and the harmful event, recognizing A.A.'s right to compensation of 148,759 euros, net of the amount indemnifiable by INAIL. The Court held that the arduous working conditions and the employer's responsibilities, pursuant to Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code, justified the liquidation of differential damages.

The employer's liability is in addition to INAIL's purely compensatory liability, as the foundations and scopes of the two compensatory measures are different.

Grounds for Appeal to the Court of Cassation

Omissis Spa filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation, contesting various aspects of the appellate judgment. Among the grounds, the company argued for the violation of Article 112 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and the inadmissibility of the first-instance judgment due to a lack of passive standing. The Court rejected these claims, stating that, in cases where compensation for occupational disease is sought, there is no lack of passive standing for the employer.

• The employer can be held liable for damages arising from occupational diseases.
• Criminal liability can coexist with the indemnity offered by INAIL.
• Compensation includes both biological damage and differential patrimonial damage.

Recognition of Moral Damages

Another crucial aspect of the judgment concerns the recognition of moral damages. A.A. contested the rejection of his claim for moral damages, arguing that the Court of Appeal had not adequately reasoned its decision. The Court of Cassation upheld the second ground of the incidental appeal, highlighting that moral suffering is an independently compensable aspect and that the Court of Appeal should have considered the psychological repercussions of the harmful event.

Conclusions

Judgment Cass. civ., Labor Section, No. 25191 of 2023, reaffirms the importance of protecting workers in cases of occupational diseases, clarifying that the employer's liability cannot be evaded. Furthermore, the recognition of moral damages underscores the need for a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the suffering endured by workers. It is essential that the lower courts consider all aspects of the damage, both patrimonial and non-patrimonial, thereby ensuring adequate and complete justice.