News
Article
The action for inexcusable fault: to whom should the employer seek reimbursement of sums paid in the event of a reduction in compensation for damage by the judge?
Regarding the judgment of the Court of Cassation, Civil Division 2, 20 June 2019, No. 18-18.595, published in the Bulletin
Compensation for damages awarded to the victim of an accident at work or occupational disease due to the employer's inexcusable fault for failing to comply with the safety obligation is paid directly to the beneficiaries by the Fund.
The latter then turns to the employer to claim the amounts awarded.
The question that the Court of Cassation had to decide was to whom the employer should turn for reimbursement of the overpayment, when he had won his case and the amounts due for the damage had been reduced.
In this case, following a judgment by the Tribunal des affaires de social security (now the TGI Pôle social), the Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Landes (Landes primary health insurance fund) paid compensation directly to the victims of occupational diseases and recovered the amount from the employer, the Gascogne papier company, whose inexcusable fault had been recognised.
The company complied and reimbursed the Fund.
However, the amount of compensation was reduced by two judgments of the Court of Appeal.
The company therefore had to take action against the Landes primary health insurance fund to recover the overpayment.
The company thus initiated proceedings to have the overpayment reimbursed and issued a summons for seizure to the fund, which contested it before an enforcement judge.
The Court of Cassation agreed with the Court of Appeal that if the employer had made an overpayment when the Fund requested reimbursement of the sums, it was entitled to request reimbursement again, relying on a judgment of the Court of Appeal which had reduced the sums related to the compensation.
According to the Court, the judgment of the Court of Appeal constituted a writ of execution allowing the employer to act and to initiate an action for attachment against the Fund.
The company complied and reimbursed the Fund.
However, the amount of compensation was reduced by two judgments of the Court of Appeal.
The company therefore had to take action against the Landes primary health insurance fund to recover the overpayment.
The company thus initiated proceedings to have the overpayment reimbursed and issued a summons for seizure to the fund, which contested it before an enforcement judge.
The Court of Cassation agreed with the Court of Appeal that if the employer had made an overpayment when the Fund requested reimbursement of the sums, it was entitled to request reimbursement again, relying on a judgment of the Court of Appeal which had reduced the sums related to the compensation.
According to the Court, the judgment of the Court of Appeal constituted a writ of execution allowing the employer to act and to initiate an action for attachment against the Fund.
Follow me also on :
