Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 464

Summary: - A worker's request for compensation for an injury arising out of and in the course of work, or his request for the expenses of his treatment or the treatment of a member of his family pursuant to Law 28 of 1969 concerning work in the oil sector, and the occurrence of a disagreement between him and the employer concerning the contents of the medical certificate or the treating physician's report regarding the treatment period and the place designated for it. Whoever challenges the report or certificate, whether the worker or the employer, must submit his objection in writing to the Labour Office within a period not exceeding ninety days from receipt of the certificate or report. The Labour Office. Its obligation to refer the matter to the Medical Arbitration Committee formed pursuant to Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour Decision 23 of 1974(*). The binding force of this committee's decision. Final and not subject to challenge. The implication thereof. Matters relating to the time limit for challenging the medical certificate or report, the steps taken in that regard, and the formation of the Medical Arbitration Committee that examines the challenge are procedures confined to the Labour Office while the dispute between the worker and the employer is before it for amicable settlement, and do not extend beyond it to the court if the dispute is referred because amicable settlement proves impossible. The implication thereof. An employer's or worker's forfeiture of the right to object to the medical certificate or report before the Labour Office within the prescribed time limit means that, after referral of the dispute from the Labour Office to the court, he has no right to object to either the medical certificate or the report. - The respondent company—Kuwait Oil Company—notified the appellant—the worker—by the company physician's letter that his son had completed his treatment abroad on the basis of the medical reports and that the meeting of the Higher Medical Committee had endorsed this; and the labour complaint file referred by the competent Labour Department authority to the Court of First Instance contained no dispute by the appellant concerning these medical reports or written challenge submitted by him to the competent Labour Office within the ninety-day period from his receipt of the notification, objecting to the duration and place of his son's treatment. Its implication. The report, including the duration and place of treatment stated therein, is beyond dispute before the competent court between the appellant and the respondent company. The judgment's reliance on that letter by which the respondent company notified the appellant of the end of his son's treatment period abroad, and its dismissal of his action seeking his son's treatment expenses for the period following the date of that notification. Correct. Rule: Article 15 of Law 28 of 1969 concerning work in the oil business sector provides that: "Every oil business employer employing at least two hundred (200) workers must entrust one or more physicians with examining his workers and their families and treating them at the place prepared by the employer for that purpose. He must also provide them with all other means of treatment in cases whose treatment requires the assistance of specialist physicians, the performance of surgical operations, or otherwise, together with provision of the necessary medicines. These services shall be provided to workers and their families free of charge." Article 2 thereof provides that: "The provisions of this Law shall apply exclusively to oil workers. In matters for which no provision is made in this Law and its implementing decisions, the provisions of Law 38 of 1964 concerning work in the private sector shall also apply to them." Article 63 of the latter Law provided that: "An injured worker has the right to treatment at a government hospital or private treatment facility as the employer sees fit. The treating physician may specify in his medical report the treatment period, the disability resulting from the injury, and his ability to continue performing work. If a disagreement arises in this regard, the matter shall be referred to the Ministry of Public Health for arbitration, and its opinion shall be final. The employer shall bear the treatment expenses in full, including medicines and transport." In implementation of this provision, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour issued Ministerial Decision 23 of 1974 concerning the regulation of medical arbitration procedures in cases of occupational injuries and diseases. Article 1 thereof specified the composition of the Medical Arbitration Committee. Article 3 thereof also provided that: "The committee shall consider all challenges submitted by workers or employers relating to occupational injuries or diseases, the percentages of permanent disability resulting therefrom, or the medical certificate issued by treating physicians, whether government physicians, private physicians, or factory physicians." Article 4 thereof provided that: "The challenge must be submitted in writing to the competent Labour Office within a period not exceeding ninety days from receipt of the medical certificate or the report issued by the treating physician. The Labour Office must refer the challenge to the chairman of the Arbitration Committee within one week from its submission. No challenge submitted after expiry of the period referred to in Article 4 shall be considered." Article 5 of the same Decision provided that: "The decisions of the Medical Arbitration Committee shall be final and not subject to challenge in any manner whatsoever." Article 96 of the aforementioned Law 38 of 1964 provides that: ".....2- The action brought by the worker pursuant to the provisions of this Law shall be preceded by an application submitted by him to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour. This Ministry shall summon the parties to the dispute and take the necessary steps to settle the dispute between them amicably. If an amicable settlement is not reached, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour must, within two weeks from the worker's submission of the application, refer the dispute to the Court of First Instance....." The implication of these provisions—as established in this Court's case law—is that, where a worker seeks compensation for an injury arising out of and in the course of work, or seeks the expenses of his treatment or the treatment of a member of his family pursuant to the aforementioned Law 28 of 1969, and a disagreement arises between him and the employer concerning the contents of the medical certificate or the treating physician's report regarding the treatment period and the place designated for it, whoever challenges that report or certificate—whether the worker or the employer—must submit his objection in writing to the Labour Office within a period not exceeding ninety days from receipt of the certificate or report. The Labour Office must then refer the matter to the Medical Arbitration Committee formed pursuant to Article 1 of the aforementioned Ministerial Decision 23 of 1974, and the decision reached by that committee shall be final and not subject to challenge. This means that matters relating to the time limit for challenging the medical certificate or report, the steps taken in that regard, and the formation of the Medical Arbitration Committee that examines the challenge are procedures confined to the Labour Office while the dispute between the worker and the employer is before it for amicable settlement, and do not extend beyond it to the court if the dispute is referred to it because amicable settlement proves impossible. Consequently, if the worker or employer has forfeited his right to object to the medical certificate or report before the Labour Office within the prescribed time limit, he has no right, after referral of the dispute from the Labour Office to the court, to object to either the medical certificate or the report. It was established from the papers and the parties' documents in the action that the respondent company had notified the appellant by the company physician's letter that the appellant's son had completed his treatment abroad on 27/5/2009 on the basis of the medical reports, and that the meeting of the Higher Medical Committee had also endorsed this on 17/10/2010. The labour complaint file referred by the competent Labour Department authority to the Court of First Instance contained no dispute by the appellant concerning these medical reports or written challenge submitted by him to the competent Labour Office within the ninety-day period from his receipt of notification thereof, objecting to the duration and place of his son's treatment. Accordingly, this report, including the duration and place of treatment stated therein, becomes beyond dispute before the competent court between the appellant and the respondent company. Since the court whose judgment is challenged relied on that letter by which the respondent company notified the appellant of the end of his son's treatment period abroad, and dismissed his action seeking his son's treatment expenses for the period following the date of that notification, its judgment correctly applied the law. The criticism directed against it in this regard in the two grounds of appeal is unfounded, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.