The ruling reinforces employers’ responsibility for the effective management and prevention of psychosocial risk factors.
In Spain, on July 6, 2026, the Labor Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (Case No. 1623/2025) issued a ruling declaring that a worker’s temporary disability resulting from a myocardial infarction constitutes a work-related injury.
The plaintiff, who worked as a Social Services Technician and Coordinator at the Linares City Council, suffered an acute myocardial infarction after years of work overload, staff shortages, undefined job duties, and an accumulation of tasks.
The Court took into consideration that the worker had a history of sick leave due to stress and a previous final judgment that had classified a prior period of temporary disability—in 2017, due to an adjustment disorder—as a work-related accident. Furthermore, in 2019, a Psychosocial Risk Assessment had classified the psychosocial conditions in his department as posing a “significant” level of risk and rated them as “deficient—very deficient.”
Despite repeated demands from the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate (ITSS) to implement corrective measures, the employer maintained a passive stance, failing to implement or plan the necessary organizational solutions.
In response to the lower court’s ruling, which had classified the condition as a common illness, the High Court of Justice of Andalusia reinterpreted the concept of a causal link “arising from work.”
Thus, since no other cardiovascular risk factors unrelated to the work environment were established, the Chamber concluded that the continuous state of anxiety, fear, and alertness caused by the employer’s failure to comply with risk prevention measures was the triggering factor for the heart condition.
In the Court’s own words:
THIRD: “[A] myocardial infarction is a condition that is often closely linked to stress. Chronic stress raises blood pressure, increases cholesterol, and damages the arteries over the long term. All of this significantly increases cardiac risk (…). In the plaintiff’s case, there is no evidence of any other cause that could have contributed to the onset of said disease and/or injury; this lack of evidence must be held against the employer, as it would be unreasonable to require the worker to prove the absence of any other cause, given that this would amount to an impossible burden of proof.”
Thus, following this reasoning, the Court concludes that:
“Under these circumstances, and in light of the specific facts of this case—given that it has been established that the employee was forced to work for a significant period of time under conditions of clear work overload, causing him a significant level of stress and anxiety—this Court finds (…) that the appeal must be granted and, consequently, the claim at the heart of these proceedings must be upheld.”
In this way, the ruling reinforces employers’ responsibility for the effective management and prevention of psychosocial risk factors.
The ruling demonstrates that the continued failure to implement preventive measures in the face of severe work overload and stress can be a decisive factor in legally linking serious vascular and cardiac conditions to the concept of a work-related injury.
For more information on these issues, please contact our Labor Group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Director Labor Group | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Senior Associate | fneira@az.cl
Palmira Valdivia | Associate | pvaldivia@az.cl
Manuel Sepúlveda | Associate | msepulveda@az.cl
Catalina Díaz | Associate | cdiazp@az.cl
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
