Extract
[...] She mentions that the accident occurred at 16:02 in said stairs. She also highlights her good faith in having informed the employer quickly of her fall and disconnection at 16:01. It was up to the Court of Appeal to answer the following question: Can an employee working from home in telecommuting mode who has fallen while leaving the dedicated telecommuting room benefit from the presumption of imputability that weighs on the employer in the event of a work accident? To this question, the Court of Appeal replied in the negative. [...]
[...] Four years after forced telecommuting during the Covid-19 confinement, remote work has become a habit, according to a study by the Apec of March However, dark areas persist in the matter of work accidents, as shown by a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Amiens of June 15, 2023. In this case, an employee of the CPAM working from home had been a victim of an accident on July at 16:02, one minute after the end of her working hours. She had however informed the employer only at 17:33 and justified her hospitalization only from 17:50. On July the CPAM, the employer, then established a declaration of work accident. Then, by decision of November and after investigation, the fund refused to cover the accident under professional legislation. [...]
[...] He can therefore, as in this case, work at home. If the exit from the workplace can appear as a marker of the end of the extension of working time, in the matter of teleworking at home, it appears difficult to delimit working time beyond contractual hours. The restrictive conception is the most suitable. It allows for the avoidance of abuses by employees who would like to abuse this device. But does this solution have the intention to apply to all teleworking situations? [...]
[...] It then provided for the implementation of telecommuting by collective agreement or by a charter. The 2017 ordinances also strengthened the protection of the telecommuter, specifying in particular that he enjoys the same rights as an employee working in the company's premises and therefore benefits from the presumption of work accident. Since then, jurisprudence and an ANI of 26 November 2020 have intervened, providing some clarification, particularly on work accidents. Thus, like any employee, the telecommuter is covered by the protective legislation for work accidents and occupational diseases, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. [...]
[...] Therefore, should we understand that the compensation for work accidents weighs heavily on the Social Security system? However, the recognition of the professional nature of the accident is made by the CPAM. In fact, the question of the contradictory and the right to a fair trial arises, especially when, as in this case, the employer is also the CPAM. Moreover, we must wonder if the victimized party has not made a qualification error and should have taken advantage of the commuting accident. [...]
