Judgment No. 22897 of 2024: Review of INAIL Annuity and Terms of Reference
Judgment No. 22897 of August 19, 2024, by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for issues related to the review of INAIL annuities. In this article, we will analyze the significance of this judgment, particularly concerning the right to review the annuity in cases of worsening conditions resulting from workplace accidents. The Court has clarified fundamental aspects regarding the deadlines for requests and the necessary conditions to exercise this right.
Regulatory Context
The review of INAIL annuities is governed by Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965, which, in Article 83, establishes the time limits for exercising the right to review. However, the judgment in question has emphasized that the deadline exclusively refers to worsening conditions arising from the natural progression of the original morbid state. If, instead, the increased degree of disability is due to a supervening concurrent cause, the provisions of Article 80 of the same decree must be applied.
The Specific Case and the Court's Decision
In this specific case, the Court examined the situation of an accident that occurred during commuting in 1975, for which the insured had requested a review of the annuity due to a liver condition that manifested in 2010. The Court held that this condition was attributable to blood transfusions to which the insured had been subjected following the accident. However, it overturned the appellate court's judgment, which had classified the claim as a request for worsening, establishing that the right to the benefit was precluded by the passage of ten years from the accident.
Worsening conditions resulting from an accident - Deadline for the right to review - Applicability - Limits - Basis - Specific Case. The deadline for exercising the right to review the INAIL annuity established by Article 83 of Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965 refers exclusively to any worsening arising from the natural progression of the original morbid state, whereas, if the increased degree of disability depends on a supervening concurrent cause, the provisions of Article 80 of the aforementioned Presidential Decree apply. (In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's judgment which, having classified the claim as a request for worsening of the outcomes of the commuting accident that occurred in 1975, had ascertained that the liver pathology, which manifested in 2010 and was diagnosed in 2014, was a consequence of the transfusions to which the insured had been subjected following the accident and had therefore considered the right to the benefit to be precluded due to the passage of ten years from the accident).
Conclusions
Judgment No. 22897 of 2024 offers an important clarification regarding the review of INAIL annuities, highlighting how the distinction between worsening conditions resulting from natural progression and those caused by supervening concurrent causes is fundamental for the correct application of the regulations. Insured individuals must be aware of these distinctions to effectively exercise their rights. Therefore, it is advisable to consult a legal expert in the field to evaluate specific situations and navigate the various regulatory provisions.
