NORWAY Trends and Developments
Therefore, three out of five judges concluded that the doctor’s injury during a break while working from home was not covered by the statutory requirement that the injury must occur while “the employee is at work at the workplace during working hours”. Given the widespread use of remote work in recent years, this is a judgment that employers should inform employees about when discussing remote work – employees have weaker protection against occupational injuries when working remotely. In this way, employees can make an informed choice and consider whether they need to obtain additional pro - tection – for example, supplementary insurance. Supreme Court ruling clarifies the boundaries of “occupational accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act On 29 October 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that provides clarification of what consti - tutes a “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act. The judgment establishes that falling, while in the workplace, caused by illness or fainting is not covered by occupational injury insurance, unless there is an external influence or an increased risk con - nected to the employment situation.
The central question was whether fainting at work, followed by injury in the subsequent fall, should be regarded as a “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insurance Act. The majority – four out of five judges – confirmed that the concept of a work accident under the Act fundamentally requires a “sudden and external event”, meaning the injury must be caused by something external to the employee’s internal condi - tion. The same applies to falls on a flat surface without any external influencing factor. Furthermore, the cause of the injury must have a connection to employment or risk factors present in the workplace. The judgment provides clarification of the require - ments for obtaining occupational injury insurance coverage in this area. Injuries resulting from illness or indisposition leading to a fall in the workplace will, as a general rule, not be covered unless the fall is caused by external influence (for example, slipping on some - thing, tripping over an object), or if the employment entails a particular risk for the specific type of injury. This applies even if the National Insurance (NAV) has approved the injury under the National Insurance Act. The decision also demonstrates that the concept of “work accident” under the Occupational Injury Insur - ance Act and the National Insurance Act is currently interpreted differently, which may result in varying cov - erage for the same incident.
421 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook