Background

A claimant filed a case against a company and requested the court to appoint an expert in order to determine the damage which had resulted from his illness at work.

The court rejected the case.

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and that the court had rejected his case although the mental illness he had suffered from had happened while he was working and was a reason for his retirement.

The court stated this argument was invalid because the case documents revealed that the claimant himself had not claimed that the illness or the damage was a result of a mistake by the company and so the company was not responsible for paying compensation.