Fainted at work - does not receive occupational injury compensation

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has concluded that fainting at work does not constitute an occupational accident. In the case, a lift installer had been on sick leave for a long time after fainting and hitting his head on a concrete floor at work.

For businesses, the judgement means that the liability for occupational accidents under the Occupational Injuries Insurance Act has been more clearly defined.

In the case, the Supreme Court concludes that a fall after fainting is not considered an occupational accident when the person who faints falls on a flat floor. In other words, the person who falls does not fall from something, such as a staircase, nor does he or she fall onto something that causes injury. The reason why the person faints is not relevant.

With this, the Supreme Court corrects what has been the practice in the National Insurance Court, the National Insurance Administration's circular and NAV, and draws support for its interpretation from the practice of the Financial Appeals Board.

The Supreme Court's decision is based on a review of the preparatory works for the Occupational Injuries Insurance Act. The Supreme Court refers, among other things, to a report from 1988 in which a fall down stairs is accepted as an accident within the meaning of the Act, and concludes from this that a fall without external influence that does not occur on stairs or in another place where the risk of injury is high, typically from a standing position on a flat surface, is not covered by the concept of occupational accident in the Occupational Injuries Act Section 11, first paragraph, letter a. The Supreme Court also finds support in a report from 1990 in which a ‘fall on the same level’ or ‘fall due to fainting’ is not considered to be covered, unless the person falls or hits an object that poses a risk of injury.

The question divides the Supreme Court into a majority of four judges and a minority of one. The minority believes that what constitutes an ‘accident at work’ must be interpreted in the same way as under the National Insurance Act and in accordance with the practice of the National Insurance Court and refers to the fact that the Supreme Court based this on an earlier judgement, Rt-2005-1757. The purpose of the Act to prevent and compensate for accidents also indicates that falls where it is unclear what triggered the fall in the workplace should be covered.

Littler's lawyers specialise in employment and labour law and advise employers. Feel free to contact Merete Furesund and Veslemøy Lode.