Vision loss can no longer be assessed by a one-size-fits-all rule or a generic scale. This is the main takeaway from the Supreme Court’s recent doctrine on permanent disability in cases of vision loss, a matter with direct impact on businesses, self-employed workers, and employees engaged in risky activities.
The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has solidified the criterion that total vision loss in one eye can give rise to permanent total disability when it affects professions requiring binocular vision, depth perception, distance judgment, or work in hazardous environments. The most recent case concerns a bricklayer who lost vision in one eye after a workplace accident. In its decision 109/2026, dated January 29, the Supreme Court recognized that this sequel permanently and totally incapacitates him for his usual occupation.
The nuance is important. It isn’t that any loss of vision automatically equates to permanent disability; rather, the relationship between the injury and the actual tasks of the job must be analyzed. Up until now, many cases relied on guiding criteria like the Wecker scale or historical references from the old workers’ compensation regulations. But the Supreme Court insists that these parameters cannot be applied in the abstract, because not all professions require the same visual capacity or entail the same risks.
Key point: it’s not just the injury, but the job
The shift in approach has a clear consequence for small businesses and freelancers: the assessment of a visual impairment must be based on the specific job. Losing sight in one eye is not the same when performing administrative tasks as when working in construction, transportation, manufacturing, maintenance, agriculture, logistics, or machinery operation.
In the case analyzed, the Supreme Court notes that the bricklayer profession requires using cutting, piercing, or drilling tools, working at heights, and moving through worksites with gaps, uneven surfaces, and risk of falls. Monocular vision narrows the peripheral field, affects depth perception, and makes distance estimation harder—factors essential for safely working on a construction site.
The doctrine does not arise from nothing. The Supreme Court had already addressed a similar case in 2023 when it examined the case of a senior construction worker who lost an eye after a workplace accident. That ruling, 731/2023, dated October 10, laid the groundwork to reinforce now the criterion that monocular vision does not always qualify as partial disability.
What professions are most affected
The impact can be especially significant for small businesses where the employee or the self-employed individual performs manual tasks, moves around constantly, or works with tools and machinery. We are talking about bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, installers, carpenters, industrial workers, drivers, delivery personnel, maintenance technicians, farmers, gardeners, warehouse staff, or professionals who work at height.
For a small business, the issue isn’t only employment or disability benefits. It also affects workplace safety, shift scheduling, job accommodation, and the potential reassignment of the worker. The company must be able to demonstrate exactly which tasks the position truly requires and what risks come with continuing in the role with a severe visual limitation.
Moreover, since the reform published in 2025, a declaration of permanent disability no longer allows automatic termination of the contract without first assessing whether reasonable accommodations or adaptation possibilities exist, in line with evolving regulations on disability and workplace inclusion.
What SMEs and self-employed workers should review
For small businesses, this Supreme Court criterion requires grounding risk prevention in the reality of each position. A generic job description is not enough. It is advisable to review risk assessments, job descriptions, essential tasks, visual requirements, machinery use, work at height, driving, handling of hazardous tools, and exposure to third parties.
It is also advisable to thoroughly document any incident, medical report, functional limitation, or recommendation from the safety service. In these cases, the difference between partial and total disability may hinge on how the mismatch between the sequelae and the core tasks of the trade is demonstrated.
The Supreme Court’s message is clear: vision impairment is not measured merely in percentages. It is measured in context. And in high-risk professions, that context can be decisive. For small businesses and freelancers, the practical consequence is obvious: visual health, workplace safety, and the precise definition of job roles gain even more weight in daily business management.
