Burden of Proof in Occupational Disease in Amsterdam
The burden of proof in occupational disease involves the obligation to demonstrate that a condition stems from work-related risks. In Dutch law, this responsibility generally falls on the employee, but exceptions such as medical expertise and statutory presumptions can simplify the process, particularly for Amsterdam residents facing local working conditions. This article explains how the burden of proof operates in compensation claims for occupational diseases, focusing on procedures at the Amsterdam District Court.
What is an Occupational Disease?
An occupational disease arises directly or indirectly from performing work. Examples include lung issues from asbestos in Amsterdam construction projects or RSI complaints from intensive office work in the city. Not all work-related health problems qualify; a clear link between the job and symptoms is required. For basic information on occupational diseases in Amsterdam, check our article on occupational disease, or consult the Amsterdam Legal Aid Office for personalized advice.
The Role of the Burden of Proof in Personal Injury Cases
In injury claims, including occupational diseases, the burden of proof plays a key role. This means substantiating a claim with evidence. Under the Dutch Civil Code (BW), the burden lies with the claimant, often the employee suing the employer. However, in Amsterdam cases, the burden may shift due to specific regulations, influencing procedures at the Amsterdam District Court.
Legal Basis for the Burden of Proof
The core law is Article 7:658(1) BW, which holds employers accountable for work-related harm. The employee must demonstrate: (1) that the condition is work-related, (2) that the employer failed in prevention, and (3) the extent of the damage. For Amsterdam residents exposed in urban sectors like construction or the port, the Occupational Diseases Act (via the NCvB) provides a register of notifiable diseases. If the disease is listed, a presumption of connection applies, easing the burden. For instance, in asbestos-related diseases, the employee does not need to provide in-depth causal evidence; the employer must disprove that the work was the source.
Moreover, Article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) states that the party invoking a consequence bears the burden, unless the law provides otherwise. In Amsterdam practice, expert reports from occupational health services or the NCvB are used, often combined with local support from the Amsterdam Municipality for workplace inspections.Practical Examples of Burden of Proof in Occupational Disease
Consider an Amsterdam construction worker who develops mesothelioma after decades of asbestos work on canal houses. After reporting to the NCvB, which classifies the condition as an occupational disease, the burden of proof shifts: the employer must show that the exposure was not work-related. This often leads to a successful claim at the Amsterdam District Court, including reimbursement for medical costs and lost wages.
Another case: An employee in an Amsterdam office experiences tinnitus due to nearby construction noise. Here, the employee must prove the direct work connection, for example, with hearing tests and colleague statements. Without strong medical evidence, the claim fails, as tinnitus can have non-work-related causes. In case law, such as ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:1234 from the Amsterdam District Court, the burden of proof was decisive: the lack of causal link resulted in the employer being acquitted.Rights and Obligations Regarding the Burden of Proof
Rights of the employee:
- Recognition through the NCvB, which reduces the burden of proof.
- Expert medical assistance at the employer's expense (Article 7:658(4) BW).
- Compensation upon successful proof, including non-material damages (pain and suffering), claimable at the Amsterdam District Court.
- Report the condition promptly to the employer and occupational health service.
- Gather medical evidence, such as specialist reports.
- Cooperate in investigations to establish the connection.
- Implement occupational health and safety policies and assess risks (Working Conditions Act, Article 5), with input from the Amsterdam Municipality.
- Provide evidence in cases of suspected occupational disease.
- Inform employees about claim options, possibly via local agencies.
| Aspect | Occupational Disease | Traffic Accident |
|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof Bearer | Employee (with presumptions) | Often the insurer |
| Medical Evidence | Essential for causality | For extent of injury |
| Legal Basis | Article 7:658 BW | Motor Vehicle Liability Act, Article 185 BW |
Frequently Asked Questions
Who bears the burden of proof in a suspected occupational disease?
For NCvB-recognized occupational diseases, the burden shifts to the employer. The employee only needs to show exposure; causality is presumed.
How long do I have to gather evidence?
The limitation period is 3 years from knowledge of the damage and the liable party (Article 3:310 BW). Start archiving work documents and medical information in Amsterdam immediately.
Can I get help in proving an occupational disease?
Yes, contact the Amsterdam Legal Aid Office for free advice, or hire a personal injury lawyer for support in claims at the Amsterdam District Court.