In recent days, a communication has been circulating among HR departments and personnel offices, issued by a labor consulting firm, commenting on a recent ruling by the Italian Court of Cassation regarding sick leave certificates and the allocation of the burden of proof.
However, the considerations set out in that communication are partial and, above all, risk creating operational short circuits for companies required to manage real-world situations that are far more complex than those described in purely theoretical terms.
Illness and Conduct: Two Distinct Dimensions
It is important to clarify that the recent ruling of the Italian Court of Cassation (Order No. 8738/2026) should not be interpreted as a firm endorsement of the “intangibility” of the medical certificate, nor as a general downsizing of the role of investigative activities in cases of absenteeism.
The Medical Certificate: Evidentiary Value, but Not Absolute
It is correct to state that a duly issued medical certificate has strong evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded on the basis of mere indications or simple clues.
However, this principle cannot be interpreted as a form of “immunity” of the certificate itself.
A certificate may, in fact, be formally correct yet substantively flawed due to a distortion or misuse of the employee’s actual medical condition. The issue is not to challenge, a priori, the accuracy of the certifying physician, who operates on the basis of the information available at the time of the examination, but rather to verify whether the factual reality is consistent with what has been declared.
When factual evidence, obtained through investigative activities carried out by authorized agencies, reveals conduct incompatible with the declared state of illness, it is not only legitimate but necessary to take disciplinary action, promptly initiating formal proceedings in response to objectively inconsistent behavior.
Such intervention does not merely constitute a verification of potential abuse, but also serves a preventive and deterrent function, helping to discourage similar conduct and to reinforce compliance with organizational rules.
In this sense, investigative activity serves a multifaceted function: it protects the company from duly substantiated misconduct, helps ensure the proper disbursement of INPS benefits, also borne by the community, discourages similar behavior, and safeguards the good faith of the certifying physician, who may be misled by an inaccurate representation of the employee’s health condition.
An additional aspect, often overlooked, should also be considered: verification activities help protect the majority of employees who act correctly. Failure to address abuses can in fact lead to organizational imbalances, increased workloads, and a widespread sense of internal unfairness, with direct impacts on the workplace climate.
Investigations: Really Just “Simple Clues”?
One of the most questionable aspects of the communication is the reduction of investigative activity to a mere set of “clues.”
Those who operate in the field know that this is not the case.
Investigations carried out by authorized agencies are not mere impressions or subjective assessments, but structured and documented activities, often conducted over multiple days and supported by video and photographic evidence, as well as consistent reconstructions of the observed conduct.
Not surprisingly, in operational practice, it is often the investigative agencies themselves that advise against taking action when solid elements do not emerge, particularly in the presence of merely social or recreational behavior.
Referring to “clues” in this context means failing to understand, or choosing not to understand, the distinction between perception and evidence.
Above all, it means overlooking a key point: such evidence is not necessarily intended to prove the absence of illness, but may instead form the basis for independent disciplinary actions grounded in the abuse of sick leave status.
Operational Reality (Often Overlooked in Circulars)
There is also an aspect that rarely emerges in theoretical analyses: the practical functioning of control mechanisms.
INPS medical inspections represent a fundamental tool, but they do not cover the full spectrum of situations. An employee may comply with the required availability time slots, obtain extensions of the medical certificate, and appear formally compliant, while still engaging in activities incompatible with their declared condition outside those time windows.
In such cases, in the absence of investigative activity, any substantive verification becomes effectively impossible.
Relying exclusively on institutional controls means accepting a gray area that, in practice, significantly limits the company’s ability to intervene.
It is precisely within this space that investigative activities do not replace medico-legal evidence, but often constitute its logical and operational premise.
A Balance That Protects All Parties
Verification activities do not serve a purely repressive function.
It helps protect the company from improper conduct, ensures the correct disbursement of benefits, also borne by the community, and preserves the internal organizational balance.
But not only.
It also safeguards the position of employees who act correctly and, not least, the good faith of the certifying physician, who may be misled by an inaccurate representation of the employee’s health condition.
In this sense, investigative activity, beyond protecting the company, also contributes to the integrity of the system, discourages similar conduct, and indirectly protects both the physician and compliant employees.
Separately, an additional and often overlooked aspect should be considered: the failure to address abuses leads to increased workloads and a widespread sense of internal unfairness, with direct impacts on the workplace climate.
The Real Risk of This Interpretation
The risk is not theoretical. It is operational.
Turning a sound legal principle into a de facto invitation to passivity ultimately deprives companies of essential tools to manage abuse.
The balance is not between the medical certificate and investigative activity, but among medical documentation, factual observation, and, where necessary, technical assessment.
What Emerges in Conclusion
The ruling of the Italian Court of Cassation reiterates sound and widely accepted principles, but it cannot be interpreted in an abstract manner detached from operational reality.
Within this balance, investigative activity is not an ancillary element but a pivotal one: it is what allows a suspicion to be transformed into a fact, and a fact into a legitimate course of action.
Everything else is a simplification. And, as often happens, simplifications work well in documents, much less so in reality.
Then there is a final aspect, less technical, but nonetheless relevant.
In light of the document we have discussed, it appears evident that, in certain areas of the country where absenteeism has long represented a concrete issue, some positions prompt more reflection than others.
Because it is often precisely when such phenomena begin to be observed and documented that discomfort grows toward the tools that make them visible; and, not coincidentally, it is at that very moment that investigations suddenly become “unnecessary.”
English 
Italian