The prejudice of anxiety, dedicated in 2010, is a moral prejudice, which allows the compensation of persons who are not ill but who are concerned about getting the to become at any time due to their working conditions. A decision of the Court of cassation of 11 may 2010 defines it as “the existence of a risk is not realized (that) is confused with anxiety that this can generate”. This prejudice arises from a situation of constant anxiety in the face of risk declaration at any time by a disease, playing on the mental health of the people.
” READ ALSO – Stress, anxiety, burnout: how to protect against it
who does it?
“This mechanism is strictly correlated to those exposed to asbestos”, says lawyer Eric Rocheblave, a specialist in labour law. The prejudice of anxiety is based on a law enacted on 23 December 1998, under which is granted an allowance early retirement early “employees and former employees of the establishments of manufacturing of asbestos-containing materials”.
” READ ALSO – “Eco-anxiety”: when the temperature increase causes a fall in morale
This prejudice has long been concerned with the employees of facilities that have registered on the lists giving the right to the “early retirement asbestos”, that is to say, the workers of the processing of the asbestos or shipbuilding.
damage that exceeds the labour law
But from the 5 April 2019, the high court recognized that “the employee who has an exposure to asbestos (…) can act against his employer, for failure of the latter to its safety obligation, when well even it would not have worked in any of the establishments listed.
The prejudice of anxiety does not apply to other sources of anxiety from the world of work, such as working in a dangerous environment, such as a nuclear plant, or have conflicting relations with his colleagues or his superiors. “Legitimate reasons”, however, ensures the lawyer Eric Rocheblave.
” READ ALSO – Mediator: the “loss anxiety” recognized for 12 patients
Out of the labour law, in which only the asbestos is concerned, the harm anxiety may apply to the Mediator. The tribunal de grande instance of Nanterre has selected the prejudice of anxiety for the patients who have taken this medicine in 2016: “the exposure to the risk, even low, of developing a valvulopathy or pulmonary hypertension can generate a anguish to constitute a reparable damage in patients who took the Pick.” The justice admits as well that this feeling may be compensable damages in respect of prejudice of anxiety, but is not seriously contestable.
