Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
81-40686 Généré par l'IA

Employee Fitness Determination and Judicial Review of Occupational Health Opinion

Numéro de cause 81-40686
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An employee, hired in 1977 as a part-time handler, sought permanent cadre status in 1978, but was dismissed in 1979 after the admission medical visit declared him physically unfit for the requested position. The Court of Appeal ordered an expert examination to assess the employee's fitness based on a disagreement between the treating physician and the occupational physician, whose decision had been confirmed by the regional chief physician upon appeal. However, the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision, reasoning that the employer is bound to rely on the occupational physician's opinion, and ordering an expertise to review that opinion violated the relevant labor and civil procedure code provisions, as no such review procedure was provided for in the texts.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

L 241-10-1, R 241-23, 455 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE; Employee Fitness Determination and Judicial Review of Occupational Health Opinion: The Court of Appeal ordered an expert examination to assess the employee's fitness based on a disagreement between the treating physician and the occupational physician, whose decision had been confirmed by the regional chief physician upon appeal. However, the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision, reasoning that the employer is bound to rely on the occupational physician's opinion, and ordering an expertise to review that opinion violated the relevant labor and civil procedure code provisions, as no such review procedure was provided for in the texts.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
santé au travail expertise médicale contrôle juridictionnel constatation de l'incapacité de gain évaluation de l'aptitude médicale évaluation de places de travail

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
L 241-10-1
Cited as one of the legal provisions violated by the Court of Appeal's decision to order an expert appraisal contrary to the statutory framework for medical assessment.
R 241-23
Cited as one of the legal provisions violated by the Court of Appeal's decision to order an expert appraisal contrary to the statutory framework for medical assessment.
455 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE
Cited as a procedural article relevant to the defect in the decision being overturned (failure to state reasons or respect mandatory procedure).
Généré par l'IA
07-42098
Occupational Fitness and Reassignment Obligations in Dismissal
04-45600
Employee Dismissal After Partial Fitness Determination Upheld Despite Procedural Claim
23-14227
Occupational Physician's Opinion on Reassignment Scope of Judicial Review
01-40199
Employee Dismissal Following Conflicting Medical Opinions on Fitness for Work
03-40231
Occupational Physician's Authority in Employee Reassignment Overriding Lower Court Findings

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
L 241-10-1

Cited as one of the legal provisions violated by the Court of Appeal's decision to order an expert appraisal contrary to the statutory framework for medical assessment.

R 241-23

Cited as one of the legal provisions violated by the Court of Appeal's decision to order an expert appraisal contrary to the statutory framework for medical assessment.

455 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE

Cited as a procedural article relevant to the defect in the decision being overturned (failure to state reasons or respect mandatory procedure).

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : VU LES ARTICLES L 241-10-1, R 241-23 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL ALORS EN VIGUEUR ET 455 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE;

ATTENDU QUE M X..., QUI AVAIT ETE ENGAGE PAR LA SNCF EN 1977 COMME CONTRACTUEL A TEMPS PARTIEL DANS LES FONCTIONS DE MANUTENTIONNAIRE, SOLLICITA, EN 1978, SA TITULARISATION COMME CADRE PERMANENT;

QUE, LA VISITE MEDICALE D'ADMISSION AYANT REVELE SON INAPTITUDE PHYSIQUE A L'EMPLOI SOLLICITE;

IL FUT LICENCIE LE 23 FEVRIER 1979;

QU'IL ESTIMA CETTE MESURE INJUSTIFIEE;

ATTENDU QUE, POUR ORDONNER UNE EXPERTISE AFIN D'APPRECIER L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE DE M X..., LA COUR D'APPEL S'EST FONDEE SUR UNE DIVERGENCE DE VUE ENTRE LE MEDECIN TRAITANT ET LE MEDECIN DU TRAVAIL DONT LA DECISION AVAIT ETE CONFIRMEE, SUR RECOURS DE M X..., PAR LE MEDECIN CHEF DE LA REGION;

ATTENDU CEPENDANT QUE L'EMPLOYEUR EST TENU DE PRENDRE EN CONSIDERATION L'AVIS DU MEDECIN DU TRAVAIL ET NE COMMET PAS DE FAUTE EN LE FAISANT;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LA COUR D'APPEL, QUI, EN L'ABSENCE D'UNE PROCEDURE PREVUE PAR LES TEXTES, A ORDONNE UNE EXPERTISE AUX FINS DE CONTROLER LE BIEN FONDE DE L'AVIS DU MEDECIN DU TRAVAIL, A VIOLE LES DISPOSITIONS DES ARTICLES SUSVISES;

PAR CES MOTIFS : CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES LE 6 JANVIER 1981 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE POITIERS;

REMET, EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT ARRET ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL DE LIMOGES.