The widow’s appeal against the judgment of the TSJ of Madrid dismissing the case against the corporation is inadmissible
MADRID, August 10 (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court has upheld the Madrid Supreme Court (TSJ) ruling which concluded that there was no link between the death of presenter José María Íñigo and asbestos on RTVE’s sets.
Íñigo died of malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2018, and while he is known to have provided services to RTVE on various television programs from 1975 to 1985, the judges did not consider it proven that his death was related to the asbestos ateliers.
The Supreme Court has backed the Madrid TSJ’s decision by dismissing the presenter’s widow’s appeal. The First Section of the Social Chamber declared the judgment under appeal to be final in a decision dated July 20, which Europa Press has received, against which there is no longer any appeal.
YOU GAVE THE REASON IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
The presenter’s wife turned to the Madrid courts to explain that the condition of the widow’s pension she recognized was that of an occupational disease.
In March 2021, the Social Court No. 2 of Madrid upheld the lawsuit brought by Íñigo’s widow against the Sociedad Estatal Corporación RTVE, Mutua Fraternidad Muprespa, the National Institute and the General Treasury of Social Security and the Spanish Broadcasting Corporation.
The court recognized Íñigo’s “existence of a causal link between work and illness” because the brittle asbestos present in Study 1, in which he worked, “probably released fibers as a result of shock, vibration or air movement”.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the company appealed and took the case to the Madrid Supreme Court, which in November 2021 contradicted the conclusion adopted by the court and agreed with RTVE.
THE COURT DOES NOT SEE ANY CAUSALITY
The Madrid TSJ dismissed the woman’s claim on the grounds that “the activity carried out by the deceased at RTVE is not included in the table approving occupational diseases”.
At the same time, he stressed that the work was not related to activities thought to cause pleural mesothelioma, nor to activities thought to be risky due to asbestos, “it’s important to remember that all of them relate to work in direct contact with asbestos, which in this case does not occur in any way”.
Therefore, the TSJ judges concluded that the woman could not invoke a suspicion that her partner had an occupational disease, but that the causal link had to be proven.
In this regard, the Madrid court stressed that such a link had not been proven because “10% of mesothelioma cases are not caused by asbestos and because asbestos is not a gas and its fibers do not naturally dissolve, but it is necessary for a manipulation took place”, which would also have to be acknowledged, which had not happened.
In addition, he recalled that there are no measurements from the period when the presenter was exposed to a concentration above the limit on the set, insisting that at that time asbestos “was present in the daily life of all Spaniards”, both in the housing and transportation.
RESOURCE OF THE WIDOW OF ÍÑIGO
Íñigo’s widow took the case to the Supreme Court. It alleged a “possible error in the assessment of evidence” when it considered that the assessment made by the Madrid Supreme Court was not supported by evidence.
Now the First Section of the Social Welfare Chamber has specified that “what the complainant submits may be her contradiction” with the court’s conclusion.
As part of her appeal, the widow presented a judgment from the TSJ of Asturias, which she said served as a contrast to asking the Supreme Court to unify doctrine and jurisprudence in her favour.
In five pages, the Supreme Court has explained that this is another case, in which the deceased was engaged in an occupation listed in the table of occupational diseases as the cause of pleural mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos dust inhalation.
The court found that in this case the circumstances for presuming an occupational disease existed. Therefore, it concluded that “the existence of a discrepancy between the compared sets cannot be recognized” and the appeal was therefore inadmissible.