Critical assessment of several methods of challenging the normative results of the examination of the connection of the disease with the profession

Abstract

In recent years, there have been regular cases of employers and insurers refusing to fulfill their obligations to an employee affected by an occupational disease using incorrect methods of challenging the established diagnosis of an occupational disease. We analyzed pre-trial disputes and court cases in which an employer or insurer tried to avoid fulfilling their obligations to an employee affected by an occupational disease by declaring such a diagnosis unfounded without its official cancellation. The general pattern of incorrect actions by employers or insurers is stereotypical. At first, they refuse to fulfill their obligations to the sick employee on the basis of a declaration of their belief in the absence of professional pathology. If an employee tries to protect their interests in court, the employer or insurer disputes the diagnosis of an occupational disease, using various tricks to avoid objective consideration of the circumstances of the previously conducted examination of the connection of the disease with the profession. To stop the above-described practice, it is necessary to reform the legal framework in the field of accounting and investigation of occupational diseases. The procedure for considering disagreements in the field of occupational pathology diagnostics should be clearly regulated.