Recognition of an Occupational Disease pursuant to Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA

Facts

The case concerns an appellant who is asserting claims for an occupational disease pursuant to Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA. It is undisputed that he cannot derive any claims from an occupational disease within the meaning of Art. 9 Para. 1 AOIA, as neither harmful substances nor work-related illnesses pursuant to Annex I to the AOIA Ordinance are at issue.

The requirement of an "exclusive or strongly predominant" connection between the occupational activity and the illness pursuant to Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA is fulfilled if the occupational disease was caused by the occupational activity by at least 75%. This interpretation corresponds to both the wording and the purpose of the law.

Considerations

The Federal Court confirms the view of the lower instance that for the recognition of an occupational disease under Art. 9 Para. 2 AOIA, a qualified causal link between the occupational activity and the disease is required. This is given if the occupational activity accounts for at least 75% of the cause of the disease.

The Federal Court justifies this interpretation by stating that the legislator wanted to make a clear distinction between the wording "predominant" in Art. 9 Para. 1 AOIA and "strongly predominant" in Para. 2. A predominant causation only exists if the harmful substances and activities account for more than 50% of the causes. For "strongly predominant", a threshold of at…