I am looking for a legal expert in
in
This was the solution adopted by the Labour Division of the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) in the case of a La Poste employee who had been off sick for a month and had collapsed while appearing before a joint consultative committee, whose role was to give its opinion on the employee’s proposed dismissal for misconduct.
The High Court thus considered that such discomfort, even though it occurred during a period of suspension of the employment contract, qualified as an accident at work.
In so ruling, the Court of Cassation considered that the employee in question was under the dependence and authority of her employer at the time she became unwell, and that the employer was therefore obliged to “declare this accident to the primary health insurance fund to which the employee belonged, regardless of its opinion on the causes of the accident”.
This ground-breaking decision, handed down on 14 February this year by the Social Division (Cour de cassation, Social Division, 14 February 2024, no. 22-18. 798) once again raises questions about the concept of an accident at work, as the boundary between what must be reported to the Social Security Fund and what must not is often a fine line, and this distinction may expose the employer to financial penalties, such as reimbursement to the Social Security Fund of the costs incurred as a result of the accident, as well as a fine.
Article L. 441-2 of the French Social Security Code defines an accident at work as “any accident occurring as a result of or in the course of work”, whatever the cause.
The definition of such an accident therefore presupposes an accidental event, resulting in physical or psychological injuries to the employee, which must be medically established, and a causal link with the work, characterised by a relationship of subordination with the employer.
It was precisely on the existence of this causal link that the Social Division based its argument, considering that the employee was under the dependence and authority of her employer, due to the fact that she had been summoned to the company’s premises to appear before a committee that was supposed to rule on her possible dismissal for misconduct, as required by the procedure for La Poste employees.
This solution would, of course, be transposable to the case of an employee who is the victim of an accident in the workplace during his pre-termination interview.
The issue here is not so much the classification of the accident at work, but rather the employer’s obligation to declare the accident. If the employer has any doubts about the professional nature of the accident, he should express them in a letter of reservation to the CPAM, without however being able to refuse to make the declaration on this basis.