Judicial experts have generally better conditions for elaborating expert reviews for the court compared to physicians who undertake assessment activities within their medical practice. Therefore, sometimes during the assessment of the case for the court the facts that were not looked upon before are identified and consequently the former conclusion of the assessment is changed. Sentences of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic have the character of judicature and when related to the assessment of occupational diseases they should be respected by physicians in their decision making process. The paper presents the examples of assessment when the original conclusion had to be changed due to further more detailed analysis of the case in the process of judicial assessment. Several sentences of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic related to occupational diseases are mentioned.

        Key words: occupational diseases, assessment, expert review, courts, Supreme Court of the Czech Republic