A Spanish police officer lost his disability pension after the INSS ruled him fit for duty, despite ongoing treatment for PTSD and depression. A judge has now reversed that decision, exposing the disconnect between medical evidence and administrative rulings.
Gabriel, a Spanish police officer, lost his permanent disability pension when the INSS decided he was able to return to work. His health, however, had not improved. He was still receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression when the agency declared him fit for duty. That decision has now been overturned by a judge, who ordered the pension restored and reignited debate about how psychological injuries are handled in Spain’s public sector.
Gabriel’s case began with a reversal, not a denial. The INSS had previously recognized that his psychological condition—persistent anxiety, sleep problems, and depression—made police work impossible. He was granted a permanent disability pension at 55% of his regulatory base. But after a routine review, the INSS abruptly revoked the benefit, leaving Gabriel without support and facing the prospect of returning to a job that had already damaged his health.
In Spain, the standard procedure for disability disputes involves first appealing the INSS decision administratively, and only then turning to the social court if necessary.
According to his lawyer, Marina Alaminos, Gabriel’s symptoms never improved. He continued to experience severe psychological limitations, including panic attacks at the thought of returning to police work. The defense argued that these conditions were incompatible with the demands of law enforcement, where high-stress situations are routine. The INSS did not provide a clear explanation for withdrawing the pension, leaving Gabriel unable to work and without income.
After the administrative appeal failed, Alaminos took the case to court. She presented medical records and expert testimony showing Gabriel’s condition had not changed and that returning to police work would likely worsen his health. The judge agreed, ruling that the INSS had acted without sufficient basis and ordering Gabriel’s permanent disability pension to be reinstated immediately. The court based its decision on the persistence of his psychological impairments and their direct impact on his ability to perform police duties. According to several Spanish legal publications, courts in similar cases focus not just on the diagnosis but on how the condition limits the claimant’s ability to do their specific job.
Details about the court—such as the jurisdiction, date, or case number—have not been disclosed. The ruling applies only to Gabriel’s case and does not indicate a broader policy change. There is no information on whether the INSS will appeal or how long Gabriel went without his pension during the dispute. As reported by Talent24h, the case highlights the difficult position of public employees whose mental health is affected by their work, and the bureaucratic obstacles they face when seeking recognition for psychological injuries.
Recent Spanish court practice shows that in September 2026, courts issued both approvals and denials for disability pensions, depending on whether claimants could prove a lasting loss of ability to perform their usual work. This highlights that the decisive factor remains the demonstrated functional incapacity, especially in cases involving psychological disorders.
Spain’s public sector has long struggled to address psychological trauma within rigid administrative systems. This case shows the gap between medical evidence and institutional response. When agencies like the INSS prioritize paperwork over patient welfare, individuals are left to fight for basic protections in court. The judge’s decision in Gabriel’s favor is an example of the system correcting itself, but it also shows how easily vulnerable workers can be left behind when bureaucracy outweighs clinical judgment. According to several Spanish legal analysts, psychological conditions such as anxiety, depression, panic attacks, and post-traumatic symptoms are increasingly recognized by courts as valid grounds for maintaining disability pensions if they prevent a return to the claimant’s previous profession.
