All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2022Du47391 Decided April 13, 2023 【Revocation of a Disapproval Disposition of Medical Care】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Method of determining whether a particular disease constitutes an occupational accident in a case where a worker subject to the application of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act contracted work-related illnesses while working in multiple workplaces [2] Whether the “Specific Criteria for the Recognition of Occupational Diseases,” which is set out in Table 3 pursuant to Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, constitutes an illustrative example of cases falling under the category of “occupational diseases” prescribed in Article 37(1)2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (affirmative) In an appeal against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service’s disposition not approving medical care for industrial accident, which was issued by reference to the “matters necessary to be considered when determining whether a claimant’s cerebrovascular diseases or cardiovascular diseases and musculoskeletal diseases constitute occupational diseases” outlined in a notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, whether the court may determine the existence of a reasonable causal relationship by taking into account the regulatory content and the intention of amendment (affirmative) Matters to be considered and methods of determining whether a work constitutes “chronically excessive workload” [3] In the case where: (a) Party B, who worked as a call center consultant of Incorporated Company A that provides customer services over the telephone to the users of unmanned parking lots, collapsed during a meal at a restaurant nearby the workplace, showing signs of the right-side hemiparesis and aphasia; and (b) Party B was moved to hospital and diagnosed with intracerebral hemorrhage and filed for medical benefits at the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, which issued a decision not approving medical benefits on the grounds that there is no proximate causal relationship between the said injury-disease and Party B’s duties, the case holding that, while it can be presumed that Party B’s chronically excessive workload and high stress level had a negative impact on the occurrence and exacerbation of the injury and the disease, and that the chronically excessive workload and high stress level combined with high blood pressure, which is a major cause of the aforesaid injury and disease, to cause, develop, and exacerbate the injury and disease, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in its judgment, which did not recognize a proximate causal relationship between Party B’s duty and her injury and disease | |
