Due to a mistake made in the personal physician's clinic when submitting a proposal to extend temporary incapacity for work, which was discovered only after a month, and due to the unissued sick leave at the end of the calendar month, a complainant was left without salary compensation.

* * *

A complainant on sick leave turned to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) after waiting for almost a month for the decision of an appointed doctor on the extension of the temporary incapacity for work due to illness. The personal physician claimed that she forwarded the proposal to the appointed doctor in time and explained to her that in order to issue a sick note, even for the days for which the decision was still within her competence, it was necessary to await the appointed doctor's decision. At the Institute for Health Insurance of Slovenia (ZZZS), however, the complainant explained that she had not received the proposal of the personal physician. As the calendar month ended and the sick leave was not issued, the employer ordered the complainant to take unpaid leave and as a result she was left without salary compensation.

The Ombudsman contacted the clinic of the complainant's personal doctor and the ZZZS for clarification, and found that there had been an error in submitting the proposal for the extension of the temporary incapacity for work. In fact, the complainant's medical documentation was forwarded to ZZZS, and the proposal contained the information of her partner. The appointed doctor concluded that it was a proposal for the insured person's temporary suspension from work due to the care of a close family member and concluded that it was unfounded, and the insured person did not appeal against the decision. The clinic discovered the mistake made when submitting the proposal a month later, after the complainant contacted it because she had not received the decision of the appointed doctor. At that time, the personal physician made a new proposal, which was decided on within the deadline.

The clinic also tried to resolve the matter with the complainant's employer, who in the meantime ordered the complainant to take unpaid leave. The employer guaranteed that the payment of the sick leave would be settled in full in the next calendar month according to the decision and that the complainant would not suffer any sanctions.

Thus, the complainant was left without any income for one month, as she received salary compensation with a delay. The Ombudsman concluded that this could have been avoided if the practice of issuing sick notes in the outpatient clinic had been different. The ZZZS informed the Ombudsman that, as a general rule, it is indeed not possible to issue an electronic sick note for a period of temporary absence from work, which is the responsibility of the appointed doctor, if the decision has not yet been issued, but that such issuance is permissible in exceptional cases, which are related to a delay in issuing the decisions of the appointed doctor. One of these is the case when the decision on eligibility for temporary suspension from work passes to the appointed doctor for the first time (a decision will be issued on the sick leave for the first time, before that the decision is made by the personal doctor), the decision of the appointed doctor is not issued until the end of the month, and the personal doctor submits a proposal to the appointed doctor, in which he proposes to extend the sick leave or instructs the insured person to stay at home, and that was the case of the complainant.

The Ombudsman informed the clinic of the findings with the aim that in the future, in any other cases of this type, the electronic sick card would be issued on time and the insured person could receive salary compensation without delay or would not suffer other negative consequences. The Ombudsman considered the complaint justified. 9.3-9/2023