J Korean Med Assoc.  2018 Aug;61(8):474-484. 10.5124/jkma.2018.61.8.474.

Review of the recent Supreme Court decision on the causal relationship of occupational diseases

Affiliations
  • 1School of Law, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. doh@ewha.ac.kr
  • 2Sojong Partners, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

A theoretical study advocated for alleviating the worker's responsibility of burden of proof to establish the causality of an occupational disease, since such a responsibility is unfair to the worker. The recent judgment has adopted some of these arguments for alleviating the worker's responsibility of burden of proof, and the judgment is significant since it is the first Supreme Court decision to recognize the causality of occupational diseases. The judgment expressly confirms that it is more proactive to recognize the causal relationship between work and certain diseases, and to provide compensation for industrial accidents to employees who are exposed to harmful substances at all times. In addition, the judgment also confirms that coverage of industrial safety and health risks is in accordance with the original purpose and function of the industrial accident insurance system, which aims to share risks through public insurance.

Keyword

Occupational diseases; Workers' compensation insurance; Burden of proof; Causal relationship

MeSH Terms

Accidents, Occupational
Compensation and Redress
Insurance
Judgment
Models, Theoretical
Occupational Diseases*
Supreme Court Decisions*

Reference

1. Jo JH. The burden of proof of causal relationship in occupational disease. Soc Secur Law Res. 2017; 6:1–57.
2. Lee SG. Using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in toxic torts: recent cases of the supreme court of Korea. Justice. 2015; 146:256–285.
3. Kim JW. Legal measures for the recognition of cancer as an occupational disease of workers in the semiconductor industry. Democr Leg Stud. 2010; 44:15–49.
4. Lee DH. Spoliation of evidence and sanctions in civil litigation. Law Policy Stud. 2012; 12:887–914.
5. Yoo JS. Spoliation of evidence. Civil Evid Law. 1985; 25:453–473.
6. Kyeon JC. Occupational accidents caused by a daily worker with a fixed term of contract smoking a bonfire at the construction site during the suspension period: freedom, responsibility and companionship. Seoul: Judicial Development Foundation;2012.
7. Seo TH. Standards for recognition of industrial accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Supreme Court Law Rev. 2002; 34:335–514.
8. Lee SY. Social security law. Paju: Beobmunsa;2012.
9. Jo JG. A case review on the death during physical training before work time. Comment Supreme Court Decis. 2009; 82:143–154.
10. Chae GS. 1. The scope of causative work in occupational disease case of worker who has worked in several workplaces. 2. The scope of right of worker with occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in case of worker suffering from work-related illness after retirement. Comment Supreme Court Decis. 1992; 17:837–846.
11. Lee DH. The judgement on occupational disease under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Chungang Law Rev. 2013; 15:341–379.
12. Judicial Research and Training Institute. Labor special theory and occupational accident suit. Goyang: Judicial Research and Training Institute;2011.
13. Kim SB. A study of extension of the concept of disaster arising out of duty from industrial accident insurance act. Korean Soc Secur Stud. 1994; 10:171–206.
14. Korea University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation. The study on easing the burden of proof of worker with occupational accidents through analysis of actual condition of nursing care system. Seoul: Ministry of Employment and Labor;2012.
15. Park SK. Risk exposure and occupational accidents in the semiconductor work process. Labor Law Rev. 2011; 40:307–311.
16. Park JH. A study on the criteria for recognition of the work-related accident: by concentrating on the legislative and descriptive system. Labor Law Rev. 2013; 47:97–128.
17. Court of Korea. Press release about Supreme Court Decision 2015du3867 decided August 29, 2017 [Internet]. Seoul: Court of Korea;2017. cited 2018 Aug 1. Available from: https://www.scourt.go.kr/portal/news/NewsViewAction.work?seqnum=1344&gubun=6&searchOption=&searchWord=.
Full Text Links
  • JKMA
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr