Court recognizes Hepatitis C as an occupational disease

Even the constant contact with blood increases the risk of hepatitis C virus infection. Accordingly, a corresponding infection in someone who is responsible for the intravenous blood collection in the blood donation service, to recognize as an occupational disease. The Hesse State Social Court has now come to this verdict. A former nurse from Offenbach had filed a lawsuit after the employers' liability insurance association rejected the recognition.

Illness is rarely transmitted through sexual contact
As the Landessozialgericht Hessen states, the 58-year-old "was exposed to a particularly high risk of infection during her work as a nurse in the blood transfusion service". Because the hepatitis C viruses would predominantly bypass the intestinal tract enter the body (parenteral) and transmitted only in rare cases by sexual contacts. In the field of health care, it would come mainly by blood or blood products due to needlestick injuries to infection - here is the risk of infection "in case of injury with a used in an infectious patient needle [.] In hepatitis C about 3%," the statement continue.

Plaintiff worked for five years at the blood transfusion service
The applicant had trained as a registered nurse from 1987 to 1992 at a blood transfusion service, the intravenous blood collection performed and then worked as a tax clerk. In 2004, she was diagnosed with an enlarged liver and hepatitis C, whereupon the Offenbacher applied for recognition as an occupational disease. According to her own statements, during her work with the blood donation, she carried out about 400 blood samples per month and sometimes also sustained injuries from the needle.

However, the BG refused the recognition and justified its decision by saying that existing studies would not show an increased risk of jaundice health workers. The 3rd senate of the Hessian state social court contradicted this in its judgment and condemned the professional association for the recognition of an occupational illness as well as for a compensation of the plaintiff (AZ L 3 U 132/11). A revision was not allowed according to the court. (No)