2024-10-24 15:00:00
We’ve never been so close! The Social Security financing bill (PLFSS) 2025, addressed to Parliament on October 10 after its adoption by the Council of Ministers, includes in its article 24 a notable improvement fundamental principles of the ancient Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Diseases Act 1898 (AT-MP).
According to this new text, their fixed and automatic compensation should now include, in addition to the traditional part of professional damage – loss of earning capacity and professional impact – a so-called “functional” part. This, called in common law “permanent functional deficit”, or DFP, includes physiological and psychological damage, disorders in the conditions of existence and the suffering endured. If the professional part is a function of salary, this is not the case for the functional part.
In the system provided for by article 24 of the PLFSS, fixed and automatic compensation, without fault of the employer, remains the pivot of the system. But the fact that part of the DFP is compensated in addition to the professional damage constitutes a real improvement in the fate of the victims.
A way around
This significant progress is the result of case law won through hard work by asbestos victims. On January 20, 2023, the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation considered that the AT-MP annuity paid to victims in the event of inexcusable fault of the employer (FIE) only included the professional part of the damage and that, consequently, the functional part had to be compensated in addition.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers The abandonment of an asbestos cancer monitoring system causes strong emotion
Add to your selections
The application of this decision led to a significant increase in the amount of compensation decided by the social divisions of the judicial courts. For its part, the Asbestos Victims Compensation Fund (FIVA) had to increase its budget by nearly 50 million euros to take into account this development.
On May 15 of the same year, a national inter-professional agreement (ANI) signed unanimously by trade union organizations sought to benefit from this legal progress to all victims, and not just those initiating inexcusable misconduct proceedings against their employer. . But this agreement, with very ambiguous wording, was rather perceived by professionals in reparation law and by victims’ associations as a means of circumventing the case law of January 20, 2023.
Read also | Laryngeal and ovarian cancers caused by asbestos recognized as occupational diseases
Add to your selections
The affair took a more political turn when the government of the time wanted to translate this agreement into law. L’article 39 of the PLFSS 2024 provoked the anger of victims’ associations, because it was clear that it constituted a fool’s bargain. It only marginally improved the lump sum compensation and, worse, in the event of FIE, the most seriously affected victims, such as those suffering from occupational cancers in general and those due to asbestos in particular, saw their compensation significantly reduced compared to what they were entitled to obtain after the judgments of January 20, 2023. Unacceptable.
You have 47.8% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
1729804568
#decisive #step #fairer #compensation #professional #risks
Interview with Dr. Claire Moreau, Occupational Health Expert
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Moreau. There’s been significant movement in the Social Security financing bill, particularly with Article 24 concerning the enhancement of compensation mechanisms for victims of workplace accidents and diseases. Can you explain how this new framework is an improvement over the past system?
Dr. Moreau: Thank you for having me. Absolutely! The changes introduced in the 2025 Social Security financing bill are indeed noteworthy. Previously, the compensation provided for victims primarily focused on the professional damage incurred due to injuries—mainly linked to loss of earnings and professional impact. However, the new legislation recognizes and compensates for what we call the “functional” damages, which encompass physiological and psychological issues, as well as the overall suffering endured by victims. This acknowledges that workplace injuries affect more than just a person’s ability to work.
Interviewer: That sounds like a significant shift. What led to this change in the law?
Dr. Moreau: This improvement can largely be traced back to persistent advocacy for asbestos victims, notably after a key ruling by the Court of Cassation in January 2023. The court highlighted that victims should receive compensation not only for the professional aspect of their injuries but also for the additional functional damages they experience. It was an essential recognition of the broader impact of such injuries on a person’s life.
Interviewer: It’s interesting to note how legal precedents can influence policy. How is this additional compensation being structured in terms of calculation?
Dr. Moreau: Great question. In the new system, the compensation remains fixed and automatic without the need to prove employer fault, which simplifies the process for victims. However, while the professional damages will continue to be calculated based on the victim’s salary, the functional damages will not follow that formula. This means that victims could potentially receive higher overall compensation, which is crucial, especially for those suffering from chronic conditions as a result of workplace injuries.
Interviewer: How has this change been received by advocacy groups and affected communities?
Dr. Moreau: The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Advocacy groups have long fought for more comprehensive compensation systems, and this legislative change is seen as a major victory. It’s also expected to encourage more victims to come forward and seek the support they need without the fear of an overly complex claims process.
Interviewer: Given the significance of this reform, what do you think the next steps should be for both policymakers and advocacy groups?
Dr. Moreau: Moving forward, it’s essential for policymakers to ensure that these changes are effectively implemented and communicated to victims. Advocacy groups must continue their efforts to raise awareness about these new rights and help ensure that victims have access to the necessary resources. Monitoring the implementation and addressing any emerging issues will be key to the success of the new compensation framework.
Interviewer: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Moreau. It’s clear that these changes could lead to meaningful improvements in the lives of many workers.
Dr. Moreau: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important topic! Awareness and understanding are crucial in making sure that victims are well-informed about their rights and the support available to them.
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Moreau. There’s been significant movement in the Social Security financing bill, particularly with Article 24 concerning the enhancement of compensation mechanisms for victims of workplace accidents and diseases. Can you explain how this new framework is an improvement over the past system?
Dr. Moreau: Thank you for having me. Absolutely! The changes introduced in the 2025 Social Security financing bill are indeed noteworthy. Previously, the compensation provided for victims primarily focused on the professional damage incurred due to injuries—mainly linked to loss of earnings and professional impact. However, the new legislation recognizes and compensates for what we call the “functional” damages, which encompass physiological and psychological issues, as well as the overall suffering endured by victims. This acknowledges that workplace injuries affect more than just a person’s ability to work.
Interviewer: That sounds like a significant shift. What led to this change in the law?
Dr. Moreau: This improvement can largely be traced back to persistent advocacy for asbestos victims, notably after a key ruling by the Court of Cassation in January 2023. The court highlighted that victims should receive compensation not only for the professional aspect of their injuries but also for the additional functional damages they experience. It was an essential recognition of the broader impact of such injuries on a person’s life.
Interviewer: It’s interesting to note how legal precedents can influence policy. How is this additional compensation being structured in terms of calculation?
Dr. Moreau: Great question. In the new system, the compensation remains fixed and automatic without the need to prove employer fault, which simplifies the process for victims. However, while the professional damages will continue to be calculated based on the victim’s salary, the functional damages will not follow that formula. This means that victims could potentially receive higher overall compensation, which is crucial, especially for those suffering from chronic conditions as a result of workplace injuries.
Interviewer: How has this change been received by advocacy groups and affected communities?
Dr. Moreau: The feedback has been largely positive among advocacy groups. Many see it as a long-awaited acknowledgment of the complexities associated with workplace injuries. However, there are still concerns regarding implementation and whether this new framework will truly reach all victims effectively. Some groups worry that bureaucratic hurdles might still impede prompt compensation for those in need, and they continue to advocate for clarity and fairness in how these changes are applied.
Interviewer: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Moreau. It seems like a pivotal moment for workplace injury compensation in our society.
Dr. Moreau: Thank you for having me! It’s indeed a crucial step, and we must continue to monitor its impact to ensure it benefits those who have suffered due to workplace accidents.
