Judgment in a case concerning occupational injury insurance

Persons who are employed in Sweden are insured against occupational injuries by virtue of the occupational injury insurance which is part of the public social security insurance. Occupational injury means an injury resulting from an accident or other harmful effect at work. Anyone who, as a consequence of an occupational injury suffers a reduction in working capacity is entitled to compensation in the form of an annuity.

The person concerned in this case had applied for an annuity due to an injury she suffered as a consequence of an accident. She had participated in a planning day and was on her way to a lunch jointly with other meeting participants when she slipped and sustained an injury.

The Swedish Social Insurance Agency rejected the woman’s application for an annuity on the grounds that her journey to the lunch restaurant could not be regarded as being closely connected to her work, since she did not regularly visit the restaurant during lunchtime and, furthermore, the restaurant was far from the actual meeting place. In addition, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency determined that the lunch was not, and could not be compared to, an obligatory part of a conference.

The Administrative Court rejected her appeal. She subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld her appeal and decided that the accident could be regarded to be an occupational injury and that the Swedish Social Insurance Agency was to examine whether other conditions had been met for the right to an annuity. The Swedish Social Insurance Agency appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that, as regards work carried out under more flexible circumstances, it may sometimes be difficult to determine where the boundary is between working life and private life. However, the starting point should always be that the occupational injury subsists if the employee, at the time of the injury, performs something in the interest of the employer.

The Supreme Administrative Court then noted that the accident in question occurred in connection with a journey undertaken during a planning day of a foundation with which the woman was employed. The journey was undertaken during paid work hours and for the purpose that she would participate in a lunch jointly with other meeting participants. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, it may thereby be assumed to be in the interests of the employer that she carried out the journey and, accordingly, there was such a connection between the accident and work that it involves an occupational injury. The appeal was rejected.