17 Jan Is It a Work Accident That The Insured Worker Suffers From a Heart Attack In The Workplace?
The work accident is defined in Article 13 of the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510 as follows:
Work accident;
a) When the insured is at work,
b) for the work carried out by the employer if the insured works independently for his own name and account;
c) When the insured, working under an employer, is sent to another location outside the workplace as an officer,
d) (Amended: 17/4 / 2008-5754 / 8 md.) In the time allocated for the lactation of the nursing woman under the paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 4 of this Law,
e) During the arrival of the insured to the place where the work is done by the employer,
the event that occurred and immediately or later to the insured person who disregard the physical or soul. meydan
In terms of the implementation of the Social Security Law, five factors must be realized in order to qualify an incident as a work accident.
To be insured by accident,
Accident at the place and time of the insured, (in places considered as work places or workplaces)
If the insured is working independently on behalf of the employer because of the work being carried out by the employer, he / she is injured due to the work he / she is carrying out,
Immediately or later bodily (physical or spiritual) disability of the accident,
Finding the causality link in the accident.
Examples of work accidents that have been adopted by the Supreme Court decisions include: When the insured is found in the workplace, in the yard as a result of falling as a result of an injury to the life or injury in the dining hall or at the resting place, by a gun in any person by a gun or esi workplace suicide ası or in places such as swimming pool in places such as pool due to drowning is considered a work accident.
In case of work by an insured worker during his / her work at the workplace, he / she should be killed by a heart attack and be considered as a work accident as he / she carries the elements listed in the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law no.
The decision of the Court of Cassation is as follows;
C. The Supreme Court of Appeals General Assembly 2004 / 21-529 E., 2004/527 K.
“At the end of the proceedings due to the ından detection” case between the parties; (Ankara Sixth Labor Court) 19.11.2003 on the rejection of the case and the decision of 2001 / 515-2003 / 1112 on the request of the plaintiff and defendant SSK proxies, the Supreme Court of Appeals of the 21st Legal Chamber on 12.4.2004 days and 2004 / 501-3531 it the number of ilem? {Ir 1- The articles in the file, the evidence gathered, the reason for the reasons on which the provision is based, all the appeal of the respondent Institution, the appeal objections must be rejected.
2 – The case is related to the determination of the fact that the damaging insurance event should be considered as an occupational accident and there is no dispute between the parties that the incident occurred in the workplace. The dispute is collected at the point of whether or not the plaintiff’s death is due to a heart attack.
This is the law of the case! is based on Article 11-A of Law No. 506. According to the aforementioned article, the work accident is the event that immediately or later breaks down the insured in a body or soul. In other words, according to Article 11 -A-a and b of the aforementioned law, it is clear that the damaging insurance event is a legal obligation in the workplace where the insured is in the workplace and if the work carried out by the employer occurs at the disposal of the employer. The subject matter of the case occurred while the applicant was carrying out his duties as an electrician and was in the workplace. The plaintiff was killed in the workplace to eliminate electrical malfunction as a result of a heart attack as a result of his death. In this case, it is clear that the incident is a legal obligation to count the occupational accident. The decision taken to reject the case by giving a report from Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine is against the procedure and the law and is the cause of the disorder.
In that case, the appeal clauses aiming at these aspects of the plaintiff should be accepted and the provision should be disregarded ç.
Appellant: Acting attorney and defendant SSK deputy.
It was discussed by the General Assembly of Law that it was understood that an appeal was made in the period of resistance and the papers in the file were read and then they were discussed as necessary:
1. Appeal objection to the first decision of the SSI deputy is evaluated by the Special Chamber and the appeal is rejected because the appeal was rejected. Therefore, the appeal petition must be rejected.
2. As to the appeal of the deputy attorney;
The case concerned the determination of the fact that the damaging insurance case should be recognized as a work accident.
Insured worker Yusuf lost his life by having a heart attack during the work on the elimination of electrical failures of the workers’ workplace in the workplace; Since the incident was not considered as an accident at the institution, the case was opened by the rightful claimant.
Defendant SSK and employer representatives have defended the refusal of the case.
Court; the incident was not accepted as a work accident based on the report appointed from the expert board of doctors; the case was rejected. On the appeal of the plaintiff and defendant SSK deputies, the Special Chamber has decided to reject the appeals of the SSK deputy, and that the appeal requests of the plaintiff’s representative should be accepted and the incident should be considered as an occupational accident.
The Court’s decision to resist in the previous decision was appealed by the plaintiff and defendant SSK representatives.
There is no dispute as to whether the deceased was an insured worker and that the damaging insurance incident occurred in the workplace and during the work given to the employer.
The dispute which is brought to the front of the Board by the Resistance, collects whether death is possible due to a work accident as a result of a heart attack during work in the workplace.
In order to solve the dispute, firstly, it is useful to reveal the legal grounds and the principles to be applied in determining which incident is an accident.
It should be stated immediately that the “work accident Hemen is not defined in the law; however, in which. circumstances and circumstances. an accident is considered an occupational accident, it is limited to kaz place and time durum conditions.
The legal regulation on the subject is given in Article 11 of the Social Security Law No. 506 entitled ”Description of Occupational Accident and Occupational Disease Kaz and the same as in paragraph (A) of the work accident;
Ir A) A work accident occurs in one of the following cases and situations and immediately or subsequently malfunction of the insured in a body or soul.
a) When the insured is in the workplace,
b) for the work carried out by the employer,
c) When the insured is transferred to another place by the employer,
d) In times allocated for giving milk to the child insured child,
e) In the event that the insured are transported and brought to the place where the employer is provided with a vehicle, la .. e
It is called.
According to the provision of this article, work accident; The incident occurred in any of the cases and conditions specified in Article no.
As it is understood that both the practice and the teaching are clearly accepted and the text of the article is not understood as the examples in this article, it is limiting. Insurance incident that does not fall into one of these cases is not an occupational accident. It is necessary and sufficient to have any realization of these states.
Equally, an occupational accident is a legal phenomenon, and this event has to arise with the formation of any of the conditions mentioned in the above-mentioned law.
On the other hand, the elements of the work accident should be briefly emphasized. These can be listed as an insured in the sense of Law No. 506 which has suffered an accident; the accident must be incurred and the accident occurred in one of the cases and conditions listed in paragraph (A) of Article 11 of the Law no. it must take place in the form of an event that immediately or later breaks down the insured, or in the form of a malfunction; there must be an appropriate causal link between this incident and the damage suffered by the insured.
It should be noted that the fact that the law described the work accident as an event that incurred the insured was required to consider the causality (causality) as an element of the work accident. However, it is an, appropriate causality link m which should be understood as the overlap of the realization phenomenon and the result in any of the situations and conditions which the law seeks, and there should not be any other restrictive conditions that are not in the law.
In short; the mentioned legal regulation should be considered within the principles of social security law; If there is any fit in the article, it should not be interpreted narrowly in the evaluation of the other factors in the emergence or the emergence of the source of damaging insurance.
In the concrete case; the founder and the contractor, together with another worker, have been commissioned to review and repair the workplace’s workplace; While doing the job given here while the other worker is reserved for the purchase of material, he fell on the ground and fell on the road while being taken to the hospital by ambulance. The work accident was not reported to the employer. The defendant, the right of the beneficiaries of the work accident.
However, the fact that an incident is not considered as an occupational accident by the institution or the employer, whether it is caused by external factors or not, will not require that the incident be considered as an occupational accident. For; As is clearly stated in the law, it is necessary and sufficient that the event of damaging insurance has taken place in any of the cases and conditions listed in the law.
More specifically; the death of the insured under a heart attack while working in the workplace is a suitable event in accordance with the clause (a) of Article 11 of the Social Security Law no. in accordance with the dolayısıyla employment caused by the employer mekte position; work accidents. Since there is no other condition or restriction in the article, it is not possible to introduce a restriction that is not in the law through interpretation.
According to the reasons explained in the decision of the Court above and to break, the General Assembly of the General Assembly adopted the decision to comply with the decision to disrupt the Special Circumstances and the incident should be counted as an accident, contrary to the case, the incident does not count the accident in the previous decision based on the report and the refusal of the case to reject the case of the law and the law is a month . This is the reason why my titration should be broken.
Conclusion: 1. The above-mentioned petition of the defendant SSK Deputy Appeals (1). that there is no room for taking the fee as it is exempted from the fee,
(2) Above the appeal objections of the plaintiff. for the reasons explained in the article, the decision of resisting the decision to disrupt the Special Chamber as per Article 429 of the HUMK. On request, it was decided unanimously on 13.10.2004.
No Comments