The Third Chamber for Administrative Contentious and Labor Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on December 19, 2024, to deny the cassation appeal against the judgment of the Superior Labor Court of the First Judicial District, which had upheld the reinstatement order for a worker protected by disability status. The unanimous decision, written by reporting justice María Cristina Chen Stanziola, establishes a principle of general interest: when the Social Security Fund certifies that a worker is medically fit to work — even with recommendations — and the employer refuses to receive the worker back, that refusal constitutes constructive dismissal in violation of the protection established by Law 42 of August 27, 1999.

The case originated in a workplace accident that occurred on August 21, 2018, which left the worker with moderate motor disability, diagnosed and certified by Social Security Fund specialists. In January 2022, the CSS Local Occupational Health and Safety Unit issued a Work Fitness Assessment Report declaring the worker medically fit for work, with recommendations. The worker appeared before the company to request reinstatement, and upon being refused, turned to the Ministry of Labor and Workforce Development (MITRADEL). In Record No. 007 of February 11, 2022, the company's representative rejected the request, arguing that the worker had not provided services for more than two years. Labor Court No. 3 ordered reinstatement through Order No. 281 of May 10, 2022, a ruling subsequently upheld on appeal by the Superior Labor Court.

The company appealed in cassation, alleging two violations: that the lower courts had handled the case as an ordinary reinstatement proceeding for occupational hazard (Article 326 of the Labor Code) when the correct avenue would have been the abbreviated reinstatement challenge proceeding; and that the one-year period provided in Article 326 had elapsed. The Chamber dismissed both grounds. On the merits, it clarified that the employment contract was not extinguished during the disability period: Article 198 of the Labor Code provides that suspension of the contract's effects does not imply its termination nor extinguishes the remaining rights and obligations. In the absence of resignation or a request by the worker to end the relationship, the employer's refusal in the face of the CSS certification was equivalent to a dismissal without prior judicial authorization, violating the disability protection established by Law 42 of 1999 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Panama through Law 25 of 2007.

The ruling articulates the special disability regime alongside the general provisions of the Labor Code. Under Law 42 of 1999, a worker with a diagnosed disability has the right to remain in their position or to be reassigned without reduction in salary; the one-year period in Article 326 applies to reinstatement for occupational hazard in the ordinary proceeding but does not override the special disability protection status. The Chamber also invoked the *in dubio pro operario* principle of Article 6 of the Labor Code to resolve any normative doubt in favor of the worker. Court costs for the cassation proceeding were set at B/.500.00. The judgment became final on January 21, 2025, and constitutes applicable precedent for analogous situations in which an employer denies reinstatement to a worker who, having suffered a workplace accident, obtains a fitness certification with recommendations from the Social Security Fund.