• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Recognition of Radiological Risk Allowance: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, No. 17757/2014

The judgment No. 17757 of 2014, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue in the healthcare work context: the right of doctors exposed to radiation to receive a risk allowance. The matter arose after the appeal filed by the Hospital Company Clinical Institutes of Perfection against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan, which had recognized such an allowance for a group of doctors. This article aims to analyze the main aspects and implications of the ruling, with particular attention to the applicable regulations.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal of Milan had established the right of certain doctors to receive the radiological risk allowance, stating that their exposure to radiation was not occasional but continuous and significant. The Hospital Company contested this decision, arguing that the allowance should only be recognized based on actual exposure to radiation, and not merely for working in a "controlled area."

The Court highlighted that exposure to radiation must be assessed not only based on the frequency of presence in controlled areas but also on the duration of actual exposure.

The Reasons of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation, in dismissing the appeal of the Hospital Company, reiterated the importance of considering the specific tasks and working conditions of doctors. The Court stated that the radiological risk allowance is due to those workers who, by virtue of their activity, are exposed in a permanent and continuous manner, even if not all their interventions require the use of radiological devices.

  • The assessment of exposure must be based on objective criteria, such as the frequency and duration of exposure.
  • It is essential to consider professional specificities, as in the case of orthopedic and plastic surgeons, who cannot use protective devices during surgeries.
  • The principle of "expert judge" allows the judge of merit to deviate from the conclusions of the technical consultant, provided there is adequate reasoning.

Conclusions

The judgment No. 17757/2014 represents an important affirmation of workers' rights in the healthcare sector, particularly concerning the protection of the health of doctors exposed to radiation. The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the need for a thorough analysis of working conditions and actual exposures, promoting an approach that considers not only legislative norms but also the peculiarities of medical professions. This case not only clarifies the rights of doctors but also provides food for thought for healthcare institutions regarding workplace safety.