Occupational disease: Distribution of economic impact in the presence of multiple “responsible” employers

If the employee is a victim of an occupational accident or occupational disease, the resulting financial impact will be borne by the employer through the contribution of AT / MP. But who will bear these financial implications if an employee’s occupational disease is the result of being exposed to the risks of successive employers?

Employers Report Occupational Disease Impacts: Reminders

Each employer must pay URSSAF a contribution (known as an “AT / MP” contribution) that covers the risk of accidents at work, commuting, and occupational diseases. The percentage (or amount) of this contribution is not uniform and takes into account the following:

  • Risks caused by the main activities of the facility.
  • And the pricing method chosen according to the workforce of the company.

If the rates are individual or mixed, they are determined by CARSAT, especially depending on the number of AT / MP generated in-house.

See the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations and Case Law documentation for all useful details on pricing methods.

Therefore, it is in the (economic) interest of the enterprise to limit the generation of AT or MP so as not to increase this contribution rate.

Especially with regard to occupational diseases, such illnesses may be contracted by employees because they are exposed to the risks that exist within different consecutive companies. This allows each employer to be potentially “responsible” for the condition of the employee and thus potentially the cost of this occupational disease.

However, the law states that an occupational disease must be considered contracted in the service of the last employer at risk for the victim prior to his medical diagnosis. As a result, it is the last known employer at risk that must bear the AT / MP costs of this occupational disease.

However, if the employer provides evidence of opposition and the risk can identify the company that caused the occupational disease, the costs associated with this disease will be charged to a special account (as set forth in Article D 242-6). It has been). -7 CSS).

It is this issue that the Court of Cassation recently ruled.

Compensation for occupational diseases contracted for services of multiple employers

In this case, the employee declared an occupational disease covered in Table 30 of Occupational Diseases in 2016. CARSAT then enters the costs associated with his illness into the last employer’s AT / MP account.

Employers dissatisfied with this decision have questioned the court of jurisdiction to argue that the economic consequences of this occupational disease must be charged not only to AT / MP accounts, but also to special accounts stipulated by law. Was raised.

The problem is? He believes that employees have been continuously exposed to asbestos during his various jobs, especially with his employer. Early retirement of asbestos workers).. As a result, the occupational disease can result from exposure to asbestos not only within his company, but especially within this company.

In the appeal, the judge supports the employer’s allegations. They especially note that the victims actually worked at a facility that was previously on the list of people who could open their rights to ACAATA. As a result, asbestos exposure is estimated at this facility, and exposure to asbestos does not accurately identify the company in which the employee suffered an occupational disease. In addition, evidence that employees have been exposed to asbestos given the working conditions within the company stems from this presumption and the employee’s own statement. In such a way that the financial impact of occupational disease must be charged to a special account.

However, the senior justice of the peace disagrees with this opinion. If they prove that the employee actually worked in a facility that could give rise to ACAATA rights, this would be to asbestos on his working conditions by the employee’s last employer. We do not believe that evidence of exposure to is included. Therefore, the Court of Appeals will have to overturn the burden of proof and the case will have to be retried. The financial consequences of this illness are currently borne only by the last employer.

Court of Cassation, 2e Citizen’s Office, January 6, 2022, number 20-13.690
(In the case of an employer’s inheritance, the occupational disease is considered to have contracted with the last employer before being medically accredited, unless it is proven that the employee was exposed during the previous occupational experience. If so, the associated costs are: (charged to a special account, not the employer’s AT / MP account)