Injury after fall at workplace was not occupational injury

In 2017, an elevator technician fainted and fell and hit his head on the concrete floor at his workplace. Following the incident, he was on sick leave for a long time. The issue in the Supreme Court was whether the incident should be considered a "work accident." The insurance company argued that the incident could not be considered a work accident, so the technician was not entitled to occupational injury insurance. The majority of four justices in the Supreme Court agreed that the conditions for occupational injury insurance were not met. The minority of one judge concluded the opposite.

Based on the legislative history and the purpose of section 11 of the Occupational Injury Insurance Act, the Supreme Court found that falls at work that occur without external influence, and where the risk of injury is not increased – for example, from a standing position on a flat surface – are not covered by the concept of a work accident. The cause of the injury must be related to the work or risk factors at the workplace. This does not include injuries caused by illness or sudden illness, as in this case.

The adoption of the new National Insurance Act in 1997 has not changed the legal status. Nor does subsequent case law and practice from the National Insurance Court, the National Insurance Administration and NAV suggest a different interpretation of section 11 subsection 1 (a) of the Occupational Injury Insurance Act.

The judgment clarifies the scope of the term "work accident" in section 11 subsection 1 (a) of the Occupational Injury Insurance Act.

Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Section 11 of the Occupational Injury Insurance Act, section 13-3 of the National Insurance Act.

Key paragraphs: 42, 54, 70–72

Justices: Indreberg, Ringnes, Bergh, Berglund, Høgetveit Berg