|
|
 |
|
|
Illness (408, 409, 410, 411, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 422, 678,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Illness
Total judgments found: 79
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4831
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In a case such as the present, it was not sufficient for the complainant to simply assert, on the strength of a series of emails from his own physician, that his illness was service-incurred because it was, according to him, directly caused by the events of 14 October 2019. In notifying the complainant of the opening of an investigation for misconduct and of his suspension pending the outcome of that investigation, and in accompanying him outside the building, the organisation was implementing administrative decisions provided for in its legal framework. It was incumbent on the complainant to show that, in the way these decisions were implemented, ITU did not respect its duty of care, with the result that his illness was not solely due to the inherently unpleasant nature of the decisions in question. This would have required him to submit a specific claim to ITU as to the way he had been treated on 14 October 2019 and to possibly request that an investigation be undertaken.
Keywords:
duty of care; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In light of the foregoing, the complainant’s claim for compensation will be remitted to the IAEA for the JABCC to consider whether the complainant’s injury is attributable to the performance of official duties and whether he is entitled to the payment of medical expenses and compensation resulting from such injury pursuant to Appendix D.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; claim; compensation; illness; injury; remand; service-incurred;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
“[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Judgment 4761
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to recognise that the illness from which he claims to suffer is service-induced.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, there is nothing to prevent a medical board from taking into consideration matters that pre-date those in respect of which it has specifically been convened. [...]
[...] The Tribunal recalls in this regard that, in accordance with its case law, where an illness has several possible causes and only one or some of those causes are connected to professional activity, it can only be recognised as a service-induced illness if those particular causes were the determining factor (see, in particular, Judgment 4709, considerations 9 and 10, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4709
Keywords:
illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the opinion of medical experts or a of committee dealing with medical cases, such as a compensation committee, with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the opinion delivered by the committee in question shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4473, consideration 13, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4473
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the standard of proof applicable in recognising that an illness is service-incurred is indeed that of the balance of probabilities (see, for example, Judgments 3111, consideration 6, 1971, consideration 15, 1373, consideration 16, and 528, considerations 4 and 5). As that case law sometimes frames it in another manner, it is enough for there to be “a causal link in the legal sense, that is to say, some fairly definite connection” between the diagnosed condition and the alleged occupational origin for a condition to be accepted as service-incurred (see Judgments 3111, consideration 6, and 641, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 528, 641, 1373, 1971, 3111
Keywords:
illness; service-incurred; standard of proof;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, where an illness has several possible causes – which is by definition the case of such a hearing loss, according to the scientific literature cited by the Medical Adviser – and only one or some of those causes are related to the complainant’s employment, there is no reason to recognise it as service-incurred unless those causes are shown to be the determining factor (see, in particular, Judgments 3111, considerations 3, 6 and 7, and 1752, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752, 3111
Keywords:
illness; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that, under the compensation scheme applicable in the event of illness attributable to official duty established by Article 8.3 of the Staff Regulations, which is the sole legal basis for the complainant’s compensation claim, the ILO incurs strict liability when such an illness is recognised but is not held negligent. While the award of compensation under this scheme does not rule out the possibility that the Organization may also be accused of negligence, the question of whether it is liable on that other basis is in principle a separate dispute (see, for example, Judgments 4222, consideration 15, 3946, consideration 17, and 3111, consideration 8). Consequently, the complainant is not in any event entitled, in the present case, to submit for the first time before the Tribunal claims based on the existence of such negligence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3111, 3946, 4222
Keywords:
compensation; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4473
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to recognise his son’s condition as a “serious illness” within the meaning of the provisions governing reimbursement of medical expenses.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; dependent child; health insurance; illness; insurance benefits; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4324
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The applicant seeks execution in full of Judgments 3045 and 3792 and recognition that the disease which led to his invalidity status is occupational.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4298
130th Session, 2020
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for compensation for a service-incurred disability.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4246
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-recognition of her illnesses as occupational illnesses.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4242
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to consider her claim for compensation for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; illness; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred;
Judgment 4162
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final decision on her claim for compensation for a service-incurred injury or illness.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4127
127th Session, 2019
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3994.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred; summary procedure;
Judgment 4093
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; illness;
Judgment 4051
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The President’s decision to request the complainant to undergo a further medical examination to determine whether his medical condition may have guided his behaviour and affected his accountability for his actions accorded with the exercise of the EPO’s duty of care towards the complainant, as was recently explained by the Tribunal in Judgment 3972.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; duty of care; illness;
Judgment 4035
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Neither can the Tribunal accept the complainant’s argument of “arrogation by the Administration of medical expertise”, which relates to the statement made by the Administration in the reply brief that it submitted to the Appeals Board that she suffered from a “feeling of persecution”. Indeed, it cannot be inferred from this statement, as the complainant does, that the Organization thus intended to make a medical assessment of her state of health and to insinuate that she suffered from mental health problems.
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; illness;
Judgment 3998
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her compensation pending a determination by a medical expert as to whether her illness in 2012 through 2014 was service-incurred.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 3994
126th Session, 2018
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges CERN’s refusal to recognise the illness from which she says she suffers as occupational.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; illness; service-incurred;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 1284, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; medical examination; medical opinion;
Judgment 3972
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
While, in the present case, the Disciplinary Committee, but not the President when deciding initially to dismiss the complainant, did advert to the possibility that the complainant was suffering from a mental illness, it discounted entirely the possible nexus because the information available was insufficient. In circumstances such as the present, the President’s response to the complainant’s request for review was inadequate. The Tribunal concluded in Judgment 3887 that the EPO breached its duty of care towards the complainant in that case. So it is in this case as well. That duty of care would involve the EPO assessing whether the alleged misconduct can be entirely explained by the complainant’s mental illness, and also whether the complainant was entitled to benefits based on an invalidity stemming from his mental illness and perhaps his service with the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; duty of care; illness;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The ultimate decision to impose a serious disciplinary sanction was made in circumstances where the complainant was incapacitated by serious mental health issues. This should be reflected in the amount of those damages. The Tribunal assesses those damages in the sum of 30,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; illness; moral injury;
Judgment 3951
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claims for compensation for service-incurred injury or illness.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 3919
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director-General’s decision to reject her claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Considerations 13 & 14
Extract:
Contrary to WHO’s assertion, there is no evidence to support its contention of the ACCC having made a thorough analysis. [...]
[I]t is observed that in arriving at the conclusion that there were no valid reasons for the claim to be accepted for consideration, the Director-General did not take into consideration that the progressive nature of the complainant’s illness and all of her relevant surrounding personal circumstances presented valid reasons for making the claim for compensation on the date that she did.
Keywords:
compensation; evidence; illness;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; illness; service-incurred;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
