Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 3 Studia Prawa Publicznego

Authors help

  1. 3 Wojciechowicz J.

Years help

  1. 3 2019

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Praca zarobkowa jako przesłanka utraty prawa do zasiłku chorobowego w orzecznictwie sądów powszechnych, Sądu Najwyższego oraz Trybunału Konstytucyjnego

100%
Wojciechowicz J.
Studia Prawa Publicznego
|
2018
|
issue 2 (22)
151-164
2
Content available remote

Obowiązek zwrotu nienależnie pobranego zasiłku chorobowego w związku z podjęciem pracy zarobkowej w orzecznictwie sądów powszechnych i Sądu Najwyższego

100%
Wojciechowicz J.
Studia Prawa Publicznego
|
2019
|
issue 2(26)
159-173
EN
This paper deals with the problems relating to the obligation to return the sickness benefit in the event when an insured person takes up paid employment during confirmed incapacity for work due to illness. The reason for this analysis is the non-uniform or inconsistent practice of the Supreme Court. In the majority of its issued verdicts, the opinion of the Supreme Court is that the the claim for returning the undue bene-fit paid ought to be withdrawn and cancelled if there was no information provided in the instruction about the circumstances that may lead to the forfeiture of the entitlement to statutory sickness benefit under Article 17(1) of the Act of 25 June 1999 on cash benefits from social insurance in case of sickness and maternity. However, there is also a different standpoint according to which the lack of instruction is not a sufficient basis for adjudicating that the insured party is not obliged to return this benefit. In its judgments, the Supreme Court emphasises the importance of the way in which the insured person acts. Submitting a sick leave and performing paid work is tantamount to misleading the disability pension body as to the circumstances that determine the right to a sickness be-nefit. Divergences in the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court have an impact on the judgments issued by common courts, which results in different decisions in cases of identical factual status. The non-uni-form case law of common courts has a direct impact on the situation of individual beneficiaries. Despite the same factual circumstances some insured individuals have to return the benefit whereas others are exempted from this obligation. This creates secondary inequality of the insured persons who constitute a group of similar subjects and is inconsistent with the principle of equality expressed in Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
3
Content available remote

Tryb postępowania przed organem rentowym w sprawach świadczeń z tytułu wypadku przy pracy

100%
Wojciechowicz J.
Studia Prawa Publicznego
|
2019
|
issue 4(28)
103-123
EN
This article discusses the practical aspects of recognizing an occurrence as a work-re­lated injury. The Act of 30 October 2002 on Social Insurance against Work-related Injuries and Occupational Diseases (consolidated text of 2018, item 1376) contains only a general definition of a ‘work-related injury.’ Moreover, it does not specify the meaning of the terms which are used in it, particularly of terms such as a ‘sud­den occurrence’ or an ‘external cause.’ Many problems stem from a lack of criteria which should be used while deciding whether a ‘considerable contribution to the injury’ due to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs as defined in Article 21 of the Act has occurred. Therefore, during a preliminary investigation, a dis­ability pension authority must determine whether the occurrence in question is a work-related injury. To that end it investigates whether the insured person has contributed to this occurrence to a considerable degree because if he has, such a conduct excludes the right to a work injury benefit. Accordingly, employees of the Social Insurance Company examine the accident scene and collect information in the workplace, from the prosecutor’s office, the police, or the healthcare centre, or by interviewing witnesses. Having documented the factual circumstances and explained all the existing doubts they are then able to define the terms and draw correct conclusions which result in a decision to award a benefit or to refuse it. Owing to the fact that the regulations concerning issues of recognizing an oc­currence as a work-related injury and rights to a benefit are general clauses, it is necessary to be familiar with the current case-law. Without following the trends in the case-law of the Supreme Court one is not able to interpret facts and occur­rences properly and hence the assessment of whether the insured is entitled to a work injury benefit is not possible.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.