Labor lawyer Nacho de la Calzada has publicly denounced what he called a serious error by Spain's Social Security system after it stripped a self-employed hospitality worker of her permanent total disability pension following treatment for cancer. De la Calzada said the administration declared her cured based on an incomplete report that left out the physical aftereffects and severe functional limitations she still had.
The worker, who ran her own hospitality business, lost her income overnight. She could not return to her job as a waitress, and she was also barred from claiming unemployment benefits after the examining body wrongly ruled that she had recovered.
Facing that situation, she took her case to court to show that, even though the original illness had been overcome, the resulting injuries still stopped her from working.
The legal process ended with a ruling in her favor, ordering the administration to correct its decision, restore the pension with retroactive effect, and acknowledge that her real limitations make her unable to do her usual job. De la Calzada said the case shows that labor disability is not measured only by clinical diagnosis but by how aftereffects affect a person's actual capacity to work.
Incomplete INSS report left out aftereffects
The dispute began with an ex officio review of the self-employed worker's case. She had overcome cancer with aftereffects for which she had originally been granted permanent total disability. In the later review, the managing body revoked the benefit.
De la Calzada said the INSS, Spain's National Social Security Institute, stated that she had recovered, was fine and had no injuries of any kind, which left her without a pension, without the ability to work, and without the option of claiming unemployment.
The agency's decision relied on a document that left out her full clinical picture. De la Calzada said the INSS based its decision on an incomplete medical report stating she had shown a favorable evolution, while ignoring her real aftereffects. He listed the conditions she was living with: chronic pain following a mastectomy, anxiety, insomnia and a loss of strength of nearly fifty percent in her arm.
That loss of mobility stopped her from carrying out the basic tasks of her job. De la Calzada said it is essential for workers in similar situations to know how to challenge a medical discharge issued by inspectors.
He said permanent disability is not granted for the illness alone but for the injuries or limitations it leaves behind. The failure to assess that functional impact left the worker unprotected and physically unable to return to her job, which is why she decided to defend her rights in court.
Medical evidence proves decisive in court ruling
The court process exposed the flaws in the managing body's original ruling. De la Calzada said she did not sit back: she filed a claim, and with a solid medical expert report and objective evidence of her mobility, the court ruled in her favor. He described the outcome as a devastating ruling against the agency.
De la Calzada said the case highlights mistakes made during administrative evaluations when officials presume recovery without a thorough review of a person's real working capacity. He said that when the INSS denies a disability claim by alleging a false improvement or recovery, something he said happens often because the INSS makes mistakes, the courts exist precisely to stop that kind of abuse. He concluded by stressing the importance of turning to the courts to restore the economic protection that the law grants.
