2024-08-16 12:00:00
How did the Council of State come to the burnout decision on May 28?
An employer attacked an attending physician at a physician association council meeting, accusing him of citing “burnout” as a reason for layoffs. However, this doctor only used the patient’s words as a source of information and did not understand his objective working conditions. The employer therefore challenged his right to cite burnout, which is defined as burnout syndrome. The doctor contacted the Council of State and requested that the warning issued to him by the Order’s Council be overturned.
What does it mean for an employer to dispute the use of this term?
We are seeing an increase in cases of burnout and therefore an increase in lawsuits related to this syndrome. Employers do not want it to be considered an occupational disease. On the one hand, because this will affect their health contribution, and on the other hand, because they may be condemned for “inexcusable misconduct” for not succeeding in ensuring the safety of their employees. An increasing number of employers are challenging judgments that mention burnout because they can help employees prove cases of occupational disease.
What decision did the Council of State make?
It limits these actions by employers. From now on, attending physicians will be able to mention stopping work due to exhaustion without fear of prosecution. But under certain conditions. In this case, the doctor convicted by the Order’s council canceled the warning because, although he did mention burnout, he did not overstep his rights by citing the patient’s working conditions. In other words, the doctor has every right to diagnose burnout because he subjectively hears what the patient tells him. But he couldn’t write that this burnout was related to objective working conditions because he didn’t understand them. In a case before the Council of State, if the doctor had mentioned reasons related to working conditions, the court might not have made the same decision.
What impact does this ruling have on employees and employers?
If doctors are freer to state that the cause of the suspension is burnout, employees can produce a document when asking for recognition of an occupational disease. But that doesn’t necessarily make it easier to recognize. Since burnout is not part of the occupational disease schedule, employees must provide proof that their illness is caused by work and that the disability rate is greater than 25%. Calling in sick due to burnout will reduce the employee’s burden of proof but will not bind a judge. They will retain complete freedom to decide whether to link an employee’s health status to their working conditions to determine employer liability. #
You are reading an article by L’Usine Nouvelle 3732-3733 – July-August 2024
Read summary
Selected for you
1723852857
#Attorney #Catherine #Manchec #assures #Doctors #diagnose #burnout