Court Rules Against Occupational Injury Claim for Sanitation Worker
A recent court ruling has determined that the death of a sanitation worker, who collapsed and died after work, did not qualify as an occupational injury. The Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 9, presided over by Judge Kim Guk-hyun, ruled in favor of the defendant in a lawsuit filed by the bereaved family of Mr. A against the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service. This decision overturned the non-payment of survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses.
Mr. A, who had worked as a sanitation worker since 2007, was found collapsed with a nosebleed in the break room after finishing his shift in July 2020. He was immediately taken to the hospital but passed away three days later. The death certificate listed the direct cause of death as “intracerebral hemorrhage.”
The bereaved family argued that the incident constituted an “occupational injury” and sought survivor’s benefits from the agency. However, their claim was denied, leading them to file an administrative lawsuit. Despite this, the court supported the agency’s position, stating, “There is insufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between Mr. A’s work and his death.”
Medical Expertise and Evidence
The court referenced the opinion of the agency’s advisory medical expert, who concluded that Mr. A’s condition was due to natural causes, given his history of hypertension, alcohol consumption, and smoking. According to health checkup records, Mr. A had been diagnosed with Stage 1 hypertension, dyslipidemia, and suspected liver disease since 2011.
In addition, Mr. A had a long-term habit of drinking alcohol at a level of 1 to 8 bottles of soju per day, averaging 4 to 7 days per week. He also smoked more than 15 cigarettes daily for over 35 years.
The court’s medical records examiner stated, “Considering Mr. A’s alcohol and smoking history, his death from intracerebral hemorrhage is believed to have occurred naturally, unrelated to his work.” Even though his working hours did not meet the criteria for overwork, the spontaneous nature of the hemorrhage suggested a strong link to pre-existing risk factors.
Overwork Criteria and Risk Factors
The court highlighted that the agency’s advisory medical expert noted Mr. A’s average weekly working hours in the four weeks prior to his death did not meet the acute or chronic overwork criteria. Personal risk factors for intracerebral hemorrhage, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, were confirmed. As a result, the expert opinion did not recognize a connection between his work and the hemorrhage, and the court’s examiner agreed with this assessment.
Key Points of the Ruling
- The court ruled that Mr. A’s death did not qualify as an occupational injury.
- The bereaved family sought survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses, but the claim was denied.
- The court cited the lack of sufficient evidence linking Mr. A’s work to his death.
- The agency’s medical expert concluded that the death resulted from natural causes, influenced by Mr. A’s lifestyle choices.
- Mr. A had a history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease, along with long-term alcohol and tobacco use.
- His working hours did not meet the overwork criteria, further supporting the court’s decision.
This case highlights the complex interplay between workplace conditions and personal health habits in determining whether an incident qualifies as an occupational injury. It also underscores the importance of clear evidence in such legal disputes.