OD FLASH | Relapse of an occupational disease: the limitation period does not restart

The Second Civil Division of the French Supreme Court reiterated in this decision that the recurrence of an occupational illness does not restart the two-year limitation period applicable to bringing an action for recognition of the employer’s inexcusable fault.

Cass. 2^nd civ., June 5, 2025, No. 23-11.468

· Reminder of the legal framework

When an employer is aware of the danger to which an employee has been exposed and has not taken the necessary measures to protect them, the victim of an occupational illness may hold the employer liable for inexcusable fault. Recognition of inexcusable fault entitles the employee to additional compensation (CSS, Art. L. 452-1).

The victim or their beneficiaries may claim for inexcusable fault. This action is time-barred after two years, it being specified that, in the case of occupational illness, the starting point of this limitation period is set either at the date on which the victim is informed by a medical certificate of the possible link between their illness and a professional activity or the date of cessation of payment of daily allowances (CSS, Art. L. 461-1).

· The facts

On July 22, 2004, the primary health insurance fund covered, under table no. 30 B, the pathology relating to pleural thickening in an employee.

This initial decision was not contested and had become final.

A mesothelioma diagnosed on February 15, 2017, was recognized as a relapse of the previous pleural thickening already covered by social security.

Shortly after her death on April 16, 2017, the victim’s beneficiaries brought an action for recognition of the employer’s inexcusable fault.

· The solution upheld by the French Supreme Court

The French Supreme Court held, in accordance with its previous case law, that the recurrence of an occupational disease does not have the effect of restarting the two-year limitation period applicable in such cases.

In accordance with this principle, the victim’s beneficiaries could no longer bring an action for recognition of the employer’s inexcusable fault on the grounds that the relapse would have triggered a new limitation period.

Relapses are considered to be part of the initial pathology and do not constitute a separate pathology that would restart the two-year limitation period.

The action brought on October 12, 2017, by the beneficiaries, more than two years after the payment of daily allowances, was therefore time-barred.