Compensatieregelingen voor beroepsziekten: Een empirisch-juridisch onderzoek naar ervaren rechtvaardigheid en de relatie met het aansprakelijkheidsrecht

Abstract

The settlement of claims for occupational diseases has been the subject of legal debate for years. Several solutions have already been investigated. In the discussion about the 'right' solution to the occupational disease problem, the focus is on fair claims handling. This is in line with theories about perceived procedural justice. Fair treatment is essential. For example, research shows that people are more satisfied with the outcome of their procedure if they experience their treatment as fair. A fair treatment also has positive effects on trust in authorities, such as employers. One proposed solution to the issue of occupational diseases, which appears to respect principles of fair treatment, lies in compensation schemes for occupational diseases. In the Netherlands, such schemes have emerged rapidly in recent years, often introduced by the government or (former) employers. The premise is that injured parties are compensated for their harm through a fixed payment, without an acknowledgment of liability. While this approach does not provide full compensation, it aims to offer a benefit that is delivered quickly and with minimal dispute. The intention is to avoid burdensome legal proceedings and the need to go to court, although the option to pursue legal action remains available to injured parties. Extensive literature exists on employer liability and occupational diseases. However, no prior research has examined how compensation schemes for occupational diseases align with the existing system of tort law. Furthermore, these schemes have not been analyzed from a social psychological perspective to understand how they are experienced by injured parties. This study investigates compensation schemes from both of these perspectives.