In its judgement No. 22621, dated July 2nd, 2026, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that medical examination reports drafted using ambiguous phrases (such as “unknown/unable to be located at the address”) do not constitute sufficient evidence to justify dismissal for just cause, and that the resulting ambiguity, when properly analysed, cannot be resolved to the detriment of the employee. The dispute stems from a dismissal for just cause issued by an employer against an employee who was on sick leave, following three home medical check-ups ordered by the INPS. On two of the three occasions, the reports prepared by the assigned physicians stated “unknown/unreachable at the address”; on the third occasion, the employee was absent from his residence because he was undergoing a physical therapy session, without, however, having given prior notice to the employer. The lower courts had overturned the dismissal, deeming the wording in the reports ambiguous and noting that subsequent checks had yielded positive results, and thus concluding that there was no actual just cause. The Court of Cassation ultimately upheld this ruling. The presumptive validity of the report and the court’s interpretive authority The Court reiterated that the privileged status accorded to the medical examination report – as a document drawn up by a public official in the exercise of his or her duties – applies exclusively to the facts certified by the official as having been directly observed. It does not, however, extend to expressions that, due to their wording, are open to multiple interpretations. The trial judge therefore retains full authority to interpret the meaning of inherently ambiguous expressions, by conducting a comprehensive assessment of the text of the report and the context in which the visit took place. In the present case, in fact, the phrase “unknown/not found at the address” did not allow for a definitive determination of whether the employee was absent or whether the address had been incorrectly identified; such ambiguity could not serve as the basis for the decision underlying the subsequent dismissal. The burden of proof and the protection of the employee in cases of ambiguity Drawing on a general principle, the Court confirmed that it is the employer’s responsibility to provide proof of the alleged disciplinary offense; applying this principle to the case at hand, it followed that the ambiguity in the medical inspection reports cannot be treated as evidence against the employee, as this would constitute an unlawful reversal of the burden of proof. In other words, uncertainty regarding the actual scope of the document cannot be resolved to the detriment of the party bearing the consequences of the finding, especially when the employer has not obtained additional evidence capable of corroborating the allegation of unjustified absence. Absence for physical therapy appointments and the proportionality of the disciplinary action With regard to the third medical examination, the Court recognized that leaving one’s residence without prior notice to the employer to undergo medical treatment constitutes a disciplinary offense. However, it clarified that such conduct, under the provisions of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement (NCBA) applicable to the employment relationship, should have been sanctioned with a conservative measure rather than dismissal. Since there was a lack of proportionality between the severity of the offense and the penalty imposed, the dismissal was deemed unlawful, and the reinstatement protection provided for in section 18, para. 4, of the Italian Workers’ Statute was applied. Conclusions and implications for employers Judgment No. 22621/2026 makes a significant contribution to defining the limits of disciplinary proceedings, not only in connection with medical inspections during sick leave, as in the present case, but also with regard to all actions carried out by third parties whose findings subsequently form the basis for a dismissal. It clarifies that the report of unavailability, like any other document essential to the disputed facts, is not absolute and self-sufficient evidence: its probative value depends on the clarity and unambiguity of the statements contained therein. From a practical standpoint, the decision advises employers to adopt more structured internal verification procedures that take into account not only the formal outcome of medical inspections or any other assessment of the employee’s conduct, but also the overall context of the situation, before proceeding with disciplinary actions resulting in termination.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
