Fatal accident at work: medical confidentiality does not deprive the employer of their right of recourse!
In a judgement of 2 July 2026, the Second Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation refused to refer to the Constitutional Council a priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality concerning Article L. 411-1 of the Social Security Code.
In this case, an employee had suffered a fatal medical emergency at his place of work. The primary health insurance fund had covered this incident under occupational legislation. The employer contested this decision, arguing that the presumption that the accident was work-related, combined with the lack of direct access to the autopsy report—which was subject to medical confidentiality—made it impossible for the employer to demonstrate a cause entirely unrelated to work.
The Court of Cassation rejected this argument. It pointed out that the presumption of work-relatedness attached to an accident occurring during working hours and at the workplace remains a simple presumption. The employer may therefore rebut it by providing evidence of a cause entirely unrelated to work.
Above all, the High Court emphasised that the employer is not deprived of procedural safeguards. The employer may access relevant medical information through a commissioned doctor, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Social Security Code, or request a judicial expert opinion before the competent court.
This decision thus confirms the balance struck between the protection of medical confidentiality and the employer’s right to an effective judicial remedy.
Source: Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 2, 2 juillet 2026, 26-10.830, Publié au bulletin
History
-
Fatal accident at work: medical confidentiality does not deprive the employer of their right of recourse!
Published on : 29/07/2026 29 July Jul 07 2026Actualités
In a judgement of 2 July 2026, the Second Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassa...
-
The exclusion of a risk from the cover, by the insurer, is valid provided that the clause is explicit and limited, and this ‘contractual exclusion’ of the risk does not constitute wilful misconduct or fraud
Published on : 23/07/2026 23 July Jul 07 2026Actualités
The insurer’s exclusion of a risk from cover is valid provided that the claus... -
Latest news on key information regarding the limitation period for claims for anxiety-related damage
Published on : 20/07/2026 20 July Jul 07 2026Actualités
On 29 May 2026, the Court of Cassation, sitting in a joint chamber, provided... -
Commercial equipment: the informed buyer cannot always claim a failure to provide advice
Published on : 16/07/2026 16 July Jul 07 2026Actualités
A company operating a quarry had purchased a new crawler excavator from a pro... -
Sookany Trophy 2026, Madagascar’s biggest regatta
Published on : 09/07/2026 09 July Jul 07 2026Actualités
We are delighted to be among the Gold Sponsors of the Sookany Trophy 2026, Ma... -
Can a construction damage insurer be held liable on the basis of general contractual liability?
Published on : 24/06/2026 24 June Jun 06 2026Actualités
A group of property owners alleged that their construction damage insurer had...