She was on L4 erstwhile ZUS controllers found her in the office. The court ordered the refund of the unlawful sick allowance

Mrs Aneta (name has been changed) is an entrepreneur from the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship, who runs a company dealing with the sale of fertilizers and plant protection products. She hires 2 drivers and an invoice company, and deals with the company's finances. The office runs at its own house. Her past was described by the Toruń News portal.

Last May, Mrs. Aneta suffered an accident, suffered shoulder injury. Due to the highest of the period at the company, she did not leave until October. The doctor issued L4 to her by the end of March 2024. However, in October, ZUS controllers knocked on the door of her office. Pretending to be customers, they went inside, even though there was a sign on the door that the office was closed. The female immediately warned that she would not service them.

ZUS controllers found Mrs. Aneta in front of the computer due to the fact that she was about to check the position of an crucial taxation transfer, and she was the only 1 in the company to have access to electronic finance. ZUS felt that Mrs Aneta was doing paid work during her medical leave, which is simply a violation of the rules on the usage of sickness benefit.

Already at the beginning of November, ZUS decided to collect Ms Aneta's allowance for the full period of dismissal, from October 2023 until the end of March 2024. The entrepreneur felt hurt by this decision and decided to appeal to the Labour Court in Toruń.

Judgment of the Court: ZUS lost the case

According to the Toruń News portal, now a judgement has been passed in the case amending the decision of ZUS. The court concluded that Mrs. Aneta did not break the rules on the correct usage of sickness benefit. According to the ruling, while she was on L4, she limited her professional activity and did not meet with clients. Its one-time check of the position of a taxation transfer cannot be considered to be a commercial activity.

The decision of the court restores Mrs Aneta's right to sickness benefit for the full period of L4. Moreover, ZUS was obliged to reimburse its costs for legal proceedings together with interest. The judgement emphasises that the control of the Social Insurance Institution must be carried out in a manner that takes into account the specificity of the business activity and individual wellness and professional circumstances of persons on sick leave.

Meaning of the judgement for entrepreneurs

This case may be of crucial importance to another entrepreneurs who are frequently forced to take minimum management measures, even during illness. The judgement of the court in Mrs. Aneta's case shows that one-off, casual business conduct should not automatically consequence in the failure of sickness benefit.

Summary

Ms Aneta's case is evidence that decisions of the Social safety Office can be effectively contested in a court of law if they are unjustified or do not take into account the circumstantial circumstances of the individual on sick leave. This judgement may constitute a precedent for another cases where entrepreneurs are wrongly deprived of sickness benefit. Above all, however, he stresses that the law must be applied with respect to common sense and justice.

You have questions or request aid – welcome to contactOh, my God!

Daniel Głogowski

Expert in his field – Publicist, author and social activist. The first articles were published in 1999 for global publishers. For more than 30 years, he has gained his experience through cooperation with the largest editorial offices. In his articles, he seeks to address controversial topics and present first viewpoints that allowed for a deeper knowing of the issues discussed.