Even though you have the requirements to access the recognition of serious disability provided for by law 104 of 1992, you do not have the automatic right to the accompanying allowance. The Court of Cassation, Labor section, reiterated this with three orders filed on 4 August 2026 (nos. 24421, 24423 and 24424): an already maximum degree of disability does not in itself produce the allowance, and even a detail omitted in the appeal can cost a family the financial support it was counting on.
Two sizes, two different requirements
Law 104 protects those who live with a disability that causes learning, relationship or work difficulties, and gives the right to permits, leaves and tax and non-tax benefits, as clarified by ordinance no. 24424/2026, to the accompanying allowance. The latter, governed by law no. 18 of 1980, requires 100% total disability plus at least one of two conditions: the inability to walk without continuous assistance, or the inability to carry out daily tasks alone. The Court of Cassation confirms, recalling a precedent from 2003, that the two requirements are alternative: if the disability is already at the maximum, one is enough. In the case of ordinance 24424/2026, the technical consultancy had recognized a serious disability but also noted that, in daily life, activities carried out independently prevailed. The appeal against the lack of accompaniment was declared inadmissible: the evaluation of the medical evidence is up to the judge of merit.
The application must be written in full
The second node concerns the principle of the request (art. 100 cpc): the judge only decides on what is expressly requested. In ordinance no. 24423/2026, a preventive technical assessment (art. 445 bis cpc) had confirmed a total disability with the need for continuous assistance, but the original appeal only asked for the restoration of the disability pension, without ever mentioning the allowance: as a result, the accompaniment was left out. The same applies to tax benefits linked to disability: a favorable medical assessment does not produce automatic effects if the benefit has not been specifically requested.
Review in case of opposition
Ordinances no. 24421 and 24424 finally confirm that, in the event of opposition to the assessment ordered in the preventive technical assessment, the court must re-examine the health condition in its entirety, even in the face of generic complaints: there is no need to indicate a specific technical error, it is sufficient to ask for a new overall assessment.
