Occupational Diseases and Burden of Proof: Commentary on Order No. 22592 of 2024

In the Italian legal landscape, Order No. 22592 of August 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications regarding the burden of proof in cases of occupational diseases. The ruling, which saw M. (T.) and I. (R.) as opposing parties, addresses the delicate issue of the causal link between illness and work activity, outlining the differences between scheduled and unscheduled diseases.

The Regulatory Context

In Italy, occupational diseases are primarily governed by Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965 and Legislative Decree No. 38 of 2000. These regulations provide for the application of specific tables, which list diseases attributable to harmful work activities. This is where the fundamental principle established by the Court comes into play: in cases where a disease is included in these tables, the worker must simply demonstrate that they suffer from the pathology and have performed harmful work activity to have the causal link presumed.

Burden of Proof and Scheduled Diseases

The maxim expressed in the order is clear:

Scheduled occupational diseases - Burden of proof on the worker - Content - Proof of causal link - Exclusion - Unscheduled occupational diseases - Burden of proof - Content. In the context of insurance against occupational diseases, when the disease is included in the table attached to Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965 and subsequently to Legislative Decree No. 38 of 2000, it is sufficient for the worker to prove that they suffer from it and have been engaged in the harmful work activity, because in such cases, provided that the disease manifested within the period indicated in the table, the causal link is presumed by law. In cases where the disease does not fall within the tabular provision, the causal link must be proven by the employee according to ordinary criteria, and in case of dispute, the ascertainment of the disease's attributability to the tabular provision constitutes a factual assessment reserved for the trial judge.

From this maxim, the importance of the tabular context emerges: for included diseases, the worker has a facilitated path to obtain recognition of the occupational disease, as the link is presumed. However, for unscheduled diseases, the worker is required to provide concrete proof of the connection between their pathology and their work activity.

Conclusions

Order No. 22592 of 2024 represents an important reference point for the rights of workers suffering from occupational diseases. It not only clarifies the burden of proof but also emphasizes the need for a correct interpretation of occupational disease tables. In a context where workers' health must be protected, it is crucial that the regulations are applied rigorously, thereby ensuring a fair balance between workers' rights and companies' responsibilities.