The social room of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has recognized the Inpermanent incapacity in absolute degree to practice any type of profession at a waitress Tenerife due to the chronic and daily migraines he suffers.
In 2021, when he was 48 years old, he filed a lawsuit against the National Social Security Institute (INSS) in court, alleging that the recognized degree of disability seemed insufficient given that it would allow him to do other jobs.
The plaintiff indicated that she suffered from ocular pathologies, migraines, a certain deafness and several other ailments, which, together with the symptoms and effects of the medication, made it impossible for her to perform even the lightest tasks, which is why she requested that her absolute inability to do so be recognized. practice any type of profession.
In the first instance, a Social Court ruled that although the woman suffered limitations when it came to being a waitress, she was not limited when it came to doing other jobs, so it agreed with Social Security. The woman appealed to the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, which has recognized her, in addition to the degree of absolute disability, the right to collect the entire regulatory base, which amounts to almost 1,700 euros since she filed the lawsuit two and a half years ago. . The worker maintained that among other illnesses she suffered from chronic, daily headaches, so she had ended up overusing painkillers.
The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands pointed to the reports from the disability assessment team which indicated that she was unable to carry out any work. The experts indicated that the pathologies she suffered prevented her from carrying out a work activity in conditions of “dignity, effectiveness, professionalism, regularity and efficiency,” as it was impossible to achieve “a minimum of concentration.”
The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands considered that the woman’s case was adapted to the sentences that in similar situations concluded by recognizing the degree of disability requested, and reproaches the court of first instance for only mentioning “a limitation of mobility” without specifying the reasons. affected joints or the intensity of the pain. The court then confesses that “it causes some astonishment that the judge affirms the non-existence of psychological limitations when proven facts show the presence of headaches and migraines on a daily basis.” This last condition prevents her from leading a normal life, even more so if, as is the case with this woman, the condition is of “severe intensity.”
The court ruling states that the appellant was forced to provide her services while suffering intense headaches and that “a special spirit of sacrifice or self-improvement” was required of her, which also had negative effects on the employer’s work.
The jurisprudence repeatedly states that the presence of headaches with a frequency greater than fifteen days a month implies a situation of permanent disability, although this was not reflected in the lower court ruling.
