Skip to content

THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF A CERTIFICATE OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK – Employment Germany

[ad_1]

By judgement of 8 October 2021 (docket quantity: 5 AZR 149/21) opposite to the 2 earlier occasion selections, the Federal Labour Courtroom (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) dismissed a declare for continued fee of remuneration. The Courtroom has dominated that the evidential worth of the certificates of incapacity for work may be affected particularly if an worker terminates his or her employment relationship, is then licensed as incapacitated for work on the day of termination, and the licensed incapacity for work exactly covers the period of the discover interval.
1. Info
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as a business worker for the reason that finish of 2018. The claimant herself terminated her employment relationship with the defendant on 8 February 2019. On the similar time, she submitted to the defendant a certificates of incapacity for work dated on the identical day, in response to which the claimant was on sick go away precisely till the expiry of the discover interval.
The defendant then refused to proceed to pay remuneration on the grounds that the evidential worth of the certificates of incapacity to work was disturbed because of the actual correspondence with the remaining time period of the employment relationship. The claimant requested continued fee of remuneration from the defendant
2. Ruling
The claimant had initially proved her alleged incapacity to work in the course of the interval at concern via a certificates of incapacity for work. This was the proof supplied for by legislation. The employer may undermine its evidential worth if he offered precise circumstances and, if vital, proved that there have been grounds for severe doubts concerning the incapacity to work. If the employer succeeds in doing so, the worker should substantiate and show that he was unable to work. The proof may very well be supplied particularly by listening to the physician treating the worker after he had been launched from his obligation of confidentiality.
In response to these rules, the defendant had weakened the evidential worth of the certificates of incapacity for work. The coincidence between the discover of 8 February to 22 February 2019 and the incapacity for work licensed on 8 February to 22 February 2019 gave rise to a severe doubt as to the licensed incapacity for work. The claimant had due to this fact not met her burden of proof on the existence of an incapacity to work in a sufficiently concrete method in the course of the trial.
Accordingly, the claimant was not entitled to continued fee of remuneration because of the lack of a confirmed case of sickness, which is why the courtroom needed to dismiss the declare.
3. Conclusion
The choice doesn’t imply a basic change. Relatively, it stays the case that certificates of incapacity for work have a really excessive evidential worth for the precise existence of incapacity for work. If employers don’t achieve weakening the evidential worth via circumstantial proof, or if staff can subsequently present full proof of their incapacity to work, the statutory obligation to proceed to pay remuneration stays.
As the choice reveals, it may well nonetheless repay for employers in particular person circumstances to doubt the accuracy of certificates of incapacity for work.

[ad_2]

See also  Signal or Veto? Payments Impacting Employers Await Governor Newsom's Resolution