Imminent since the end of July, the decree relating to the recognition of Covid-19 as an occupational disease was finally published, Tuesday September 15th. But as it had been announced, automatic recognition only concerns caregivers and the like and is subject to many restrictions. These are strongly criticized by the unions, who are concerned about the complexity of the procedures for the other workers concerned.
Two cumulative conditions
The text adds two new tables to the list of occupational diseases. They list the cases for which the pathology will be automatically presumed to be of occupational origin and therefore recognized as such, once the request has been made and the supporting documents provided. This recognition is not trivial: it allows 100% coverage of medical costs, but also the collection of compensation. In the event of death, the beneficiaries may also receive an annuity.
First condition: to be part of the nursing staff, or administrative, maintenance, etc., in the field of health (hospitals, pharmacies, health at work or in education, transport of patients). Second cumulative condition: having been affected by an acute respiratory illness, caused by infection au Sars-CoV-2 and which required ventilatory assistance such as oxygen therapy, or which resulted in death. “Contrary to the commitments that had been made, there is therefore no automatic recognition for caregivers, reacted Catherine Pinchaut, national secretary of the CFDT. We are absolutely furious, because there has been no change since July. “
What about the others?
All cases that do not fit into these two tables, either because they have not been placed on respiratory assistance, or because they do not fall within the designated trades, can make a request. The files will be studied on a case-by-case basis by a single committee, made up of two doctors, dedicated to the issue. The criteria are not specified, but the committee will ensure in particular that there is a link between the pathology and the work of the victim. “An obstacle course, denounces Catherine Pinchaut. The process has not been simplified, since the burden of proof is always on the patient, and he must demonstrate a permanent disability of at least 25%. “