Martina Senra and Rosa Acevedo
Two recent judgments issued by the High Courts of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid and Extremadura have once again underscored a key principle in the recognition of permanent disability: the decisive factor is not the medical diagnosis itself, but whether the worker’s limitations prevent the performance of their customary professional activity.
In this regard, the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Judgment No. 562/2025, dated 6 June) denied the pension sought by a worker employed by the ONCE. The Court examined the case of an ONCE employee who applied for permanent disability on the grounds of psychological disorders.
The Chamber assessed her ailments—apathy, mood disturbances, and slight memory problems—but concluded that these did not permanently prevent her from performing sales activities, which require attention, customer contact, and a certain degree of mental effort.
The judges recalled that the law does not permit the granting of permanent disability merely because the performance of work proves difficult or inadvisable; rather, it must be demonstrated that the exercise of the habitual profession is truly impossible. They further noted that continued employment may, in fact, contribute to the claimant’s own recovery.
Conversely, the High Court of Justice of Extremadura (Judgment No. 583/2025, dated 23 May) found in favour of a mechanic suffering from physical sequelae that precluded exertion, lifting weights, or performing repetitive movements.
The Court, relying upon the guidelines of the National Institute of Social Security (INSS), verified that such tasks are essential to the mechanical trade. Upon confirming the incompatibility between the claimant’s medical limitations and the inherent demands of his occupation, the Court declared total permanent disability in relation to his usual profession.
Both judgments convey a clear and consistent message: an illness, however serious, does not automatically confer entitlement to a disability benefit. It is essential to establish that the impairments render the performance of the essential duties of the position unfeasible. The Courts also emphasize that related recognitions—such as declarations of disability or dependency—do not, in themselves, constitute grounds for labour incapacity.
Through these rulings, the courts reaffirm a consolidated line of jurisprudence, holding that permanent disability is a strictly occupational concept, applicable only where a genuine incompatibility exists between the worker’s functional capacity and the essential requirements of their profession.
In conclusion, the courts reiterate a decisive doctrinal criterion: permanent disability may only be granted where there is a true incompatibility between what the worker is capable of performing and what their profession demands. The mere existence of illness, in itself, is never sufficient.
