The Pension Fund Tried to Challenge the Occupational Nature of a Doctor's Death from COVID-19: What the Supreme Court Decided

The Civil Cassation Court has considered case No. 308/1000/24, brought by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Zakarpattia region against a Municipal Non-Commercial Enterprise (MNE) and the widow of a deceased doctor. The Pension Fund sought to have an order establishing an investigation commission and its subsequent report — which classified the medical worker's death from COVID-19 as work-related — declared illegal.

Case Background

In December 2023, a commission established by the MNE's director concluded, following an investigation, that the death of a dental surgeon from COVID-19 infection was work-related. A corresponding report, Form H-1/P, was issued.

The Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Zakarpattia region contested these findings and initiated legal proceedings, requesting that the order establishing the commission and the investigation report be declared illegal.

The Pension Fund argued that the commission included two individuals who had participated in a previous investigation of the same case, which, in its view, contravened the Procedure for Investigation and Accounting of Occupational Accidents. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the commission's conclusion regarding the occupational nature of the infection was unfounded. The report itself indicated that the infection could have occurred either during professional duties or in daily life, leading the Pension Fund to believe the commission's conclusion was based on assumptions.

The Uzhhorod City District Court, however, determined that both the order forming the commission and the Form H-1/P report complied with the requirements of Procedure No. 337, thus finding no grounds for their annulment.

The Zakarpattia Court of Appeal subsequently upheld this decision.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court noted that legislation mandates employers to organise investigations into accidents and occupational diseases, with the specific procedure outlined in Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 337.

The panel of judges highlighted that Procedure No. 337 stipulates a distinct process for cases involving the death of medical workers due to COVID-19 infection sustained during the performance of professional duties. Such investigations are conducted by a commission formed by the head of the healthcare institution where the medical worker was employed. This commission is responsible for establishing the circumstances of death and determining whether the acute occupational disease is work-related.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the decision on whether an accident or occupational disease is work-related falls exclusively within the commission's competence. Courts, conversely, are not authorised to independently establish or deem such a fact proven. During court proceedings, the focus is solely on examining the presence or absence of procedural violations during the commission's formation, investigation, and report preparation, as well as the reasonableness of the commission's conclusions.

The court also considered the legal conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, articulated in its ruling dated 22 May 2024, in case No. 227/2301/21, which affirms that a court cannot independently establish the fact of an accident's connection to work.

Given that the lower courts found no violations in the issuance of the order establishing the commission or the preparation of the Form H-1/P report, and since the arguments presented in the cassation appeal essentially amounted to a re-evaluation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.