Madrid High Court Upholds Dismissal of Liver-Ill Worker Caught on Beer Route

On sick leave for her liver, 7.5 km of beers: the dismissal upheld by two courts

A textile sector employee requested temporary incapacity due to liver problems, underwent varicose vein surgery, and during more than a year of sick leave, a private detective hired by her company filmed her drinking beers on a bar route totaling 7.5 kilometers. The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has confirmed the fair dismissal, after the Social Court of Móstoles dismissed her claim. The defense argued that the conduct was not serious; the judges responded that the activities delayed recovery and were incompatible with the sick leave.

The case begins in 2023. The woman had been working for the company for five years performing sales, personnel selection, and schedule organization duties. After the varicose vein operation, doctors recommended short and frequent walks, rest, and a specific diet. According to the detective's report, at 11:29 she sat on a terrace and drank an alcoholic beer; at 13:09, in a bar, two small bottles; at 13:33, in another venue, three more. Total distance covered: 7.5 kilometers.

What the ruling says about sick leave for liver problems

The court does not assess whether alcohol caused or worsened the liver pathology. What it considers proven is that the worker performed activities during temporary incapacity that delayed recovery and did not fit the situation of being on sick leave. This is the core of the fair dismissal: not the illness, but the incompatibility between what is declared and what is done.

There is an analytical trend arguing that the problem is not consumption itself, but the contradiction. Three or four beers do not make anyone a liver patient, and liver problems can stem from bicho, autoimmune diseases, genetics, cancer, metabolism, or medications. The nuance matters: what the company proved was not a relapse, but physical and social activity incompatible with prescribed rest.

The private detective and the evidence supporting the dismissal

The company hired a detective who documented the worker's routine. The report details times, venues, and drinks consumed, quantifying the route at 7.5 kilometers. This accumulation of data turns suspicion into judicial proof. Without the report, the dismissal would have remained uncertain.

The defense tried to argue that the conduct should not be considered serious. The judges rejected this argument. The procedural sequence was complete: dismissal, lawsuit before the Social Court of Móstoles, dismissal of the claim, appeal to the Madrid High Court, and confirmation. Two instances, same result.

Who pays for sick leave and why the cost is debated

In the background of the case lies an economic discussion that goes beyond this worker. During temporary incapacity, the company continues paying social security contributions for the employee even if they do not receive their work. Part of the debate argues that this cost falls on the company and then on Social Security, and that the system does not distinguish between those recovering and those exploiting sick leave.

The full calculation, including employer contributions, benefits, and detective expenses, yields a figure not appearing in the ruling but explaining why companies hire investigators. Some argue that fair dismissal is the only possible response; others remind us that most sick leaves are legitimate and these cases do a disservice to those who truly need them.

The debate on sick leave: real fraud and widespread suspicion

The case has peine the discussion on the use of medical sick leave in Spain. One part of the analysis points out that fraud exists and is harder to detect in the public sector because there is no private employer hiring detectives. Another part recalls that generalizing from one case is unfair and that most workers on sick leave are genuinely ill.

The line separating fraud from the right to sick leave is fine and is settled in courts. Here, the detective's evidence was decisive. Without it, the worker would have kept her job. With it, two courts have ruled that the dismissal was fair.

---

The ruling does not say that alcohol destroyed her liver. It says she walked 7.5 kilometers through bars while on sick leave for that liver. The difference between one thing and the other is what decided the case.