English 
Norsk 
Polski 
Lietuvių kalba 
On 2 September, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling (HR-2024-1571-A) on the right to occupational injury coverage for injuries that occur during breaks while the employee is working from home. The judgement provides further clarification of when employees are covered for occupational injuries, and will be of importance to everyone who uses a home office to a greater or lesser extent.
Background to the case
The case concerned a doctor who suffered a serious foot injury during her lunch break while on an agreed home shift. The question for the Supreme Court was whether this injury should be recognised as an occupational injury.
Section 13-6, second paragraph of the National Insurance Act stipulates that occupational injury cover is provided for «occupational injuries that occur while the employee is working at the workplace during working hours». The decisive factor for accidents that occur outside the ordinary workplace is whether the employee is «at work» when the accident occurs. This is the question the Supreme Court had to consider when deciding whether the woman was entitled to occupational injury cover.
The assessment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court concluded that the woman was not «at work» when the accident occurred. The first judge referred to the fact that there must be a connection between the work and the accident. For accidents that occur during meal and rest breaks at an ordinary workplace, it is standard practice that this should be recognised as an occupational injury. However, the judge emphasised that the assessment of injuries that occur in a home office cannot simply be assessed in the same way as at the ordinary place of work or other places where the work is naturally carried out and as instructed by the employer. It was also emphasised that the purpose of the occupational injury coverage is to compensate for the particular risk that is assumed to result from the work performed by the employee. For injuries that occur during breaks at home, on the other hand, it was considered that these would not normally have any connection to work and working life.
However, the five judges in the Supreme Court did not entirely agree and split into a majority of three and a minority of two judges. The minority argued that home offices have become more widespread and that the law must be interpreted and applied to a new factual situation, and that the key factor will be the connection and proximity between the break and the employee's work.
The significance of the judgement
The judgement clarifies that employees are not covered for occupational injuries during breaks in a home office and will be important for employees who occasionally work from home.
