«Latest  ‹Forward   News item: 7571  Back›  Oldest» 

French court recognizes Microwave Sickness as cause of work accident
France Created: 1 Nov 2018
In France, on 27 September 2018, the Yvelines Social Security Court ruled that an employee had an work accident as a result of his intolerance to electromagnetic fields (EMF). The man, a technical assistant in a customer service department, became unwell at work on 6 November 2013. He becomes unwell due to an accelerated heartbeat (tachycardia) and dizziness and falls to the ground. Earlier - in 2011 - the man had been diagnosed as electro-sensitive and the company doctor had twice - in 2011 and in 2012 - requested to be transferred to another position, but this had not been followed.

The sickness insurance company refuses to regard it as a work accident because the causal relationship between the accident and the injury was not established. He lodges an appeal. The court orders a medical examination to establish whether there is a direct causal link between the claimed injury and the work accident of that day or whether this is the result of an exclusive external cause.

Medical examinations

Dr. Mireau, neurosurgeon and forensic scientist, states that there is no causal relationship and that the injury has a psychiatric cause related to an anxiety disorder and not to the work environment. The doctor states that the awareness that one is in an electromagnetic field, to the exclusion of any observable physical phenomenon, can cause the anxiety attack.

The Court found this investigation unclear and insufficiently motivated and states that the external cause of the accident had not been described and demonstrated and asked Dr. Pons - senior lecturer in cervicomaxillo-facial surgery at the university - for a new medical expertise.

Dr Pons, on the other hand, states that the accident was not caused by a traumatic event and that a causal link between the injury and the work is not excluded. Even if it is not scientifically demonstrable, the injury may be due to his hypersensitivity. This is because his hypersensitivity was already recognised in 2011 and he was asked to be transferred twice, which had not happened. The injury can therefore coincide with the complaints resulting from exposure to EMR.

Judgment of the Court

The Court of Appeal concludes from this report that a psychiatric cause is excluded. Furthermore, the injury concerns a precise and sudden event in which the existence of an exclusive external cause is not reported by the health insurance and is not objectified in the report of Dr. Pons. In addition, the company doctor's advice that he was suitable for a job in a low EMF environment and that he was asked to be transferred was not followed. The Court of Appeal therefore ruled that there are clear and consistent indicators that the injury can be regarded as a work accident and that the lack of evidence of an external cause leads to its recognition as an occupational accident.

The Court of Appeal rules in this judgment that the presumption of imputability must be assumed by these mentioned clear and consistent indicators. (First, a psychiatric cause is excluded. In addition, Dr. Pons did not rule out a possible causal link between the injury and the work and did not attribute it to a non-work related cause. Furthermore, the fact that it concerned a precise and sudden event that occurred at work and an external cause was not objectively identified. In addition, the man continued to work in an unsuitable environment because the requests for transfer were not followed up.)
Source: WeAreTheEvidence / OmegaNews, via email, 01 Nov 2018

«Latest  ‹Forward   News item: 7571  Back›  Oldest»