The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in which recognizes a mother’s right to family benefit to care for your minor child affected by a serious illness that does not require hospital admission long-term, but receives continued outpatient medical treatment in a day center and at home.
The court considers that in this case the long-term hospital admission requirement required by the benefit is equivalent to long-term health care in day hospital centers that require direct and continued treatment of the minor’s illness.
In this way, he agrees with this mother whose son, who is now six years old, was born with a serious illness of congenital origin (infantile cerebral palsy-right spastic hemiparesis).
By medical indication, he carries out occupational therapy and rehabilitation sessions three days a month, psychomotor activities twice a week and treatment one day a week in the hospital and at his own home. The mother participates in all these sessions. Both parents work and she has a 50% reduction in working hours to care for her child.
The woman requested financial benefit for caring for minors with cancer or other serious illnesses, which was denied by Mutual Midat Cyclops (MC Mutual) for not meeting the legal requirements established in the General Social Security Law (LGSS) regarding accreditation of hospital admission and the need for direct, continuous and permanent care by one of the parents.
A Social Court, on the other hand, upheld the claim that the mother filed against MC Mutual and recognized her right to receive the benefit by considering that the medical and rehabilitative treatment her son received was comparable to a hospital admission since he required the care direct, continuous and permanent of their parents.
The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, for its part, annulled the lower court ruling on the grounds that the minor had not needed prior long-term hospitalization.
The Supreme Court disagrees with this criterion and concludes that such intense, direct and continuous health care for the minor in day centers is comparable to the situation of admission long-term hospital treatment, because it is also about unavoidable medical care for the treatment of the disease that lasts indefinitely over time.
He adds that the fact that the diagnosis of the serious illness could have been made without requiring a prior period of long-term hospitalization, “cannot be an obstacle to the recognition of a social security benefit whose purpose is to compensate for the loss of income generated by the need to reduce the work day to directly attend to the care of minor children who need prolonged medical treatment.
#Supreme #Court #grants #mother #benefit #caring #sick #child #hospitalized
