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

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.

1. Izmerov N.F., Prokopenko L.A., Izmerova N.I. at al. General principles for the classification, diagnosis and treatment of occupational diseases. In: Professional pathology. National leadership. Izmerov N.F (ed.). Moscow; 2011: 70-107.

2. On the state of sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population in the Russian Federation in 2018: State report. Moscow.: Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare; 2019.

3. Ministry of Labor and Social Protection. Report on the results of monitoring the conditions and labor protection in the Russian Federation in 2016. Moscow: 2017.

4. Sevastianov M.A., Korobov M.V., Vladimirova O.N., Vardosanidze K.V., Bozhkov A.A., Bozhkov I.A. Practice for ensuring injured due to accidents at work and occupational diseases assistive rehabilitation devices. Vestnik Vserossijskogo obshchestva specialistovpo mediko-social'noj ekspertize, reabilitacii ireabilitacionnoj industrii. 2014; 3: 31-40 (in Russian).

5. Memetov S.S., Potapov V.N., Muteva T.A., Yakushev A.A. About an independent medical examination. Vestnik Vserossijskogo obshchestva specialistov po mediko-social'noj ekspertize, reabilitacii i reabilitacionnoj industrii. 2015; 3: 6-9 (in Russian).

6. Sevastianov M.A., Vladimirova O.N., Shaporova N.L., Dudina O.V., Bozhkov I.A. Medical social security injured at work due to accidents and occupational diseases. Rossijskij semejnyj vrach. 2015; 1: 44-8 (in Russian).

7. Sabanov Z.M. The legal basis for the social protection of persons who have received health damage as a result of an accident at work and occupational diseases. ANI: pedagogika i psihologiya. 2016; 3(16): 344-348 (in Russian).

8. Vasilyeva L.A., Matveev V. Y. Analysis of injury, professional diseases and measures to improve safety in agricultural complex. Vestnik NGIEI. 2014; 4 (35): 9-17 (in Russian).

9. Ushakova O.V., Lakhman O.L., Beygel’ E.A. Legal aspects of examination concerning complicated cases of occupation connection with disease. Med. trida i prom ekol. 2017; 1: 20-3 (in Russian).

10. Elsner P1, Schliemann S. The notion of occupational skin disease. Medical and legal aspects. Hautarzt. 2015; 66(3): 184-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00105-015-3582-4.

11. Boiko I.V., Andreenko O.N. Critical analysis of attempts to recognize an occupational disease as a non-insured event on the basis of the peculiarities of the disease investigation procedure. Med. trida iprom ekol. 2019; 59(1): 1020-24 (in Russian).