Employer denies liability: which defence needs assessment?

Start with four separate reasons for rejection

Keep the complete rejection and mark each argument. Do not just write “employer will not pay”: record the actual reason and where it appears. Examples include an incident allegedly outside working hours, a guard said to have been present, or treatment costs disputed as unrelated. One letter may contain several reasons; give each its own row. This editorial matrix organises discussion. It is not a legally prescribed form or decision on the burden of proof.

Rechtspraak distinguishes the employee showing injury during work from the employer's possible defences of sufficient safety measures or intent/deliberate recklessness. Sending purchase receipts and total losses again is therefore not the answer to every defence. An amount does not establish when an accident occurred. If wording is unclear, ask which row the employer means. An adviser must then apply the rules and exceptions to your facts. Rechtspraak — bedrijfsongeval of beroepsziekte ↗

Defence 1: the injury allegedly did not occur during work

Build a timeline of the work and incident: assignment, location, period, first report and medical assistance. Link it to lawfully held information such as a roster, task message, accident record or colleague's observation. Describe exactly what a witness saw. Someone helping afterwards did not necessarily witness the accident. Distinguish personal recollection from information another person supplied only later.

The assessment question is whether and how injury during the work can be substantiated. A medical document may establish injury or treatment without answering every question about location and activity. If reporting was delayed, state the date and reason honestly; do not manufacture an earlier report. Ask what is missing and whether transient evidence, such as footage, needs preservation. One missing document alone guarantees neither rejection nor success.

Defence 2: safety measures were allegedly sufficient

Identify the specific safety argument. “There were instructions” differs from “this particular aid was available then and its use supervised”. Record the risk and task the defence concerns, alongside your knowledge of actual practice that day. A later measure does not automatically prove the earlier situation. Keep the version, date and period of application of documents cited.

Arboportaal includes workplace, equipment, instructions and supervision within the duty of care. The employer's duty of care guide explains this generally; here the task is checking the defence actually raised. Ask which measure needs assessment in these circumstances and what the employer puts forward. A factual discrepancy about the named guard or instruction helps more than a broad claim that the business is unsafe. A missing form alone likewise does not establish liability. Arboportaal — aansprakelijkheid van de werkgever ↗

Defence 3: intent or deliberate recklessness is alleged

Ask whether the employer really invokes these legal concepts or merely says you made a mistake. Record the alleged act, time, instruction and supporting documents. Give a complete account of your own conduct and warnings or explanations you knew. Concealing a deviation does not help assessment. Preserve your original account rather than adjusting memories afterwards for a perceived legal advantage.

The question is whether the concrete facts support this defence under the applicable standard. Ordinary inattention is not automatically intent or deliberate recklessness. The duty-of-care guide explains that general distinction; here the task is comparing the allegation with evidence. Ask a specialist to assess the legal classification. If you ticked “own fault” on a form, its content and circumstances require assessment; do not infer without advice that every right is lost.

Defence 4: only particular symptoms or losses are disputed

Check whether the employer accepts the accident happened but disputes a particular symptom, treatment or income loss. Record the consequence, period and amount concerned. Do not simply send another workplace photograph if the unresolved issue is a symptom appearing later. Evidence can address different questions; explain for each document why it bears on the consequence actually disputed.

The question now shifts to the connection and extent of that specific loss. Discuss the medical or financial substantiation needed, using a medical adviser if appropriate. Disclose relevant earlier information honestly, but ask for reasons behind an unfocused request for your whole medical history. The general rejection guide discusses medical questions further. This row prevents a limited dispute over one item being mistaken for a rejection of all liability.

Separate combined defences and record admissions precisely

A letter may primarily deny an occupational accident and alternatively claim adequate safety even if there was one. Keep both reasons; do not choose whichever reading is more comfortable. For each row record the position, documents and unanswered matters. Mark something “admitted” only if correspondence actually says so, retaining qualifications. Proposed discussion or inspection is not automatically acceptance of liability.

Separately list losses not yet assessed, those substantively disputed and payments received. Keep the accompanying wording for each payment. The general rejection guide gives background; here the schedule narrows the question for the lawyer. Clarify ambiguous wording before agreeing. Settling one amount must not inadvertently become a much broader final settlement.

Prepare a small assessment package for each defence

For each active row collect the rejection passage, core documents and a short list of missing information. A roster may matter more than a repair bill in row one; the applicable task instruction may be central in row two. The matrix therefore produces different requests. Prioritise information that may disappear and issues where time matters. Ask who monitors legal deadlines rather than assuming an unchecked fixed period.

Set financial urgency out separately: necessary unpaid bills, income lost and payments received. This may affect next steps without proving liability. Agree secure sharing of medical information. When instructing an adviser, ask which defence is investigated first, what specialist is needed and how costs and risks are recorded. This package prepares advice; it is neither an automatically sent liability letter nor a decision awarding an advance.

Identify the question a next step must resolve

After assessment, formulate one next question: clarify a missing fact, answer a specific safety defence or obtain a decision on a defined legal issue. An unclear entire accident may require a different route from disagreement over one loss. Ask how the proposed step resolves the blockage. Repeatedly sending the same total claim does not replace that objective or automatically protect rights or deadlines.

Rechtspraak describes a partial-dispute procedure for occupational accidents before the subdistrict court to decide a defined point and assist negotiations. Discuss whether it fits the relevant row, what information is needed, costs and risks. Rechtspraak states no mandatory lawyer for that route, although complexity may justify assistance. Check representation and funding for your case. A chosen procedure or lawyer does not guarantee compensation or success. Rechtspraak — deelgeschil bedrijfsongeval of beroepsziekte ↗

• Separate the rejection into four possible defences, keeping exact passages and qualifications.
• Attach evidence to each row only when it addresses that particular question.
• Mark missing or transient information and seek advice on timely action.
• Keep payments, outstanding losses and financial urgency separate.
• Ask which step resolves the specific blockage, including costs and risks.