The Supreme court has cancelled words from the instruction about definition of degree of loss of professional work capacity
It has occurred thanks to persistence of citizen Lagunova. Valery Viktorovich has addressed in the Supreme court and has asked it to nullify the fifth point from the document which is called so - Temporary criterion of definition of degree of loss of professional work capacity as a result of accidents on manufacture and occupational diseases. The document with such difficult and long name has appeared as the decision in bowels of the Ministry of Labour and sotsrazvitija in 2001. And in 2005 already new Ministry of Health and sotsrazvitija the document produblirovalo.
That was not pleasant to Valery Viktorovichu Lagunovu in this document?
In the fifth point of Time criteria about which there is a speech, it is written that “ At definition of degree of loss of professional work capacity it is necessary to consider the professional factor, in particular, ability of the victim after accident on manufacture or occupational disease occurrence to perform work in full on the former trade (before accident or an occupational disease) or to other, equivalent it on qualification and payment, and also possibility of use of residual professional work capacity on other less qualified work in usual or specially created industrial or other working conditions “.
When citizen Lagunov has gone to the Supreme court of the country he has asked to cancel all this fifth point, and only its small, but very essential, from the point of view of sense, a part. It was a question of following words: “ Or to other, equivalent it on qualification and payment, and also possibility of use of residual professional work capacity on other, less qualified work “. Better to say, Lagunov has asked to cancel certain “ openings “ which allowed so to define degree of loss of qualification from - for traumas or occupational diseases that the victim turned out also not victim at all.
Addressing to judges of the Supreme court, Valery Viktorovich wrote that words which he asks to clean, contradict Law article 3 “ About obligatory social insurance from accidents on manufacture and occupational diseases “.
On court the representative minzdravsotsrazvitija has declared that any infringements does not see also Time criteria of any rights of the applicant do not break. Also the representative of the Ministry of Justice present on process has agreed with Lagunovym and has considered that it is right. To the same opinion the representative of the State Office of Public Prosecutor has come also.
Judges of the Supreme court, having listened to all parties, have come to opinion that Lagunov fairly brings an attention to the question and its statement it is necessary to satisfy.
As the Supreme court argued? The law on obligatory insurance upon accidents under words “ professional work capacity “ understands ability of the person to perform work of certain qualification, volume and quality. And under concept “ degree of loss of professional work capacity “ the same law understands the proof decrease in ability of the insured person expressed in percentage professionally to work before insured event.
And that fifth point of Time criteria with which Lagunov does not agree, allows to define degree of disability not only by possibilities of the person after failure or illness to do former work, but also to do less qualified work, yes practically it turns out - almost any work. Thus judges have underlined that the legislator understands accurate things as professional work capacity, namely - performance of work of strictly certain qualification, and under disability degree - ability loss to carry out not aby what work, namely that by which the person could do to illness or accident. Otherwise the right to compensation of harm of the insured person at execution of the duties will be broken by it.
By the way, the law on obligatory insurance not unique which break Time criteria. Is 57 more - I article of the Labour code from which it becomes clear that qualification is a concrete level of performance of work and it enter in the labour contract.
Under the law existing in the country (it GPK, article 253, a part 2) if any legal certificate or its part contradict the federal law, court the federal law above, so, having the big validity recognises.
For this reason the court has satisfied the statement of citizen Lagunova and has deleted doubtful words from the text of Time criteria. Now they are not present.