Understanding Occupational accidents involving Death due to Overworking via Court Decisions
You can still receive an occupational accident compensation despite having a chronic illness and without meeting the overwork criteria?
We would like to introduce a precedent that gives hope to workers in relation to the unfortunate occupational accidents, cerebrovascular disease (hereinafter, “overwork death”). It is the latest case decided on May 28th (Supreme Court, 2020. 5. 28 Decision 2019 DU 62604).
On February 22, 2018, the worker was found collapsed in his dormitory toilet before starting his night shift. He was taken to the hospital while receiving CPR yet deceased.
As such, the spouse (hereinafter, the “plaintiff”) filed a workers’ compensation claim—survivor’s benefits and funeral expense claim—to the Korea Worker’s Compensation & Welfare Service (hereinafter, the “defendant”) on March 20, 2018. The defendant decided a disposition for non-payment (hereinafter, “disposition at issue”). The plaintiff filed administrative litigation to the Seoul Administrative Court asking to cancel the disposition taken by the defendant.
In the current proceedings,
the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in the first instance. The plaintiff then appealed to the Seoul High Court, which dismissed the appeal in the second trial. That is, the defendant, Korea Worker’s Compensation & Welfare Service, prevailed in both first and second trials. The plaintiff concede defeat and appealed to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, giving the plaintiff a miraculous hope in the end. This case was a case involving overwork death. Overwork death (Karoshi) was first recognized by the labor compensation insurance of Japan. Overwork death is neither a medical nor a legal term—it is a type of a social term.
Using this case, we would like to examine the overall context of how occupational accidents are recognized. Also examined is the know-how for obtaining the recognition of an occupational accident even when it fails to meet the criteria to be recognized as an occupational accident set by occupational accident insurance.
Analyze the working conditions of the injured worker in the case of overwork death as an occupational accident
From March 8, 2010, to October 3, 2013, and from January 27, 2014, to February 22, 2018, B worked at the AA Industry (hereinafter, the “Company”). There, B worked day and night shifts while carrying out the work of loading and unloading after packaging PVC pipes of 10-30 kgs at the Company’s factory and container yard, in 30-minute increments and as a team of 2.
The working schedule of B was about 2-week consecutive work without holiday during the day, followed by a 2-day break then was about 2-week consecutive work without holiday during the night, after which B would take a break for 2 days before starting another consecutive day shift of about 2 weeks. The daytime working hours of the deceased (B) was from 7:30 to 19:00 (11.5 hours, including meals and breaks), while the night working hours started at 19:00 and ended at 7:30 am of the following day (12.5 hours, including meals and breaks).
B exhibited symptoms of severe respiratory distress due to cardiovascular chest pain while taking a break at the work residence at around 20:40, February 8, 2018, then was transferred to CC Hospital on an ambulance that his coworker called (hereinafter, ‘1st accident’). Despite being advised to be hospitalized for the suspicion of angina at the time, he did not accept due to difficulties of hospitalization caused by personal circumstances. The highest temperature on that day was 3.4℃, the lowest temperature was -11.2℃, and the average temperature was -4.6℃.
After being under 11 days of medical treatment from February 9th to 19th of 2018, B started his night shift at around 17:40 on February 20, 2018. However, immediately before his night shift,
B was found collapsed in the bathroom in the dormitory around 18:38 of February 22, 2018. B was transferred to DD Hospital of EE University while receiving CPR by the 911 paramedics without any consciousness, breathing, or pulse. Despite arriving at the Hospital around 19:36, B deceased around 19:45 Injured Worker vs. Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service The difference in positions? 
Summary of the Administrative Disposition of Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service (Defendant) Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service (Defendant) gave the disposition of nonpayment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses (hereinafter, the ‘disposition’) for the reasons that
unexpected situations or sudden changes in the working environment are not confirmed in the details of the work performed by B on August 21, 2018, it is confirmed that B performed general work, meaning that there was short-term or chronic fatigue, while it is difficult to conclude that there was additional burdening factors of work or stress factors due to excessive work. Also, in the review of the postmortem examination certificate and death certificate, the cause of death of B cannot be clearly confirmed, it is difficult to acknowledge proximate causation between the cause of death and the work.
Summary of Arguments of the Spouse of the Deceased Injured Worker (Plaintiff) B collapsed in the bathroom while preparing to start working the night shift before the commencement thereof around 18:00 of February 22, 2018. As such, it is clear that this is an accident that occurred under the control and management of the Company, which is the employer.
In addition, B worked day and night shifts every two weeks in an
environment filled with arsenic acid dust and had been performing heavy work of 11 hours during the day and 13 hours at night without being ensured of adequate break time. Also, because B could not take adequate rest due to being exposed to noise at the dormitory,
during which process physical and mental burdens heightened, leading to death. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a proximate causation relationship between the death of B and the work. Thus, the disposition of this Case, which was concluded under a different premise, shall be canceled as illegal.
Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service prevailed in the 1st and 2nd trials—but
what is the determination of the Supreme Court? This case is currently in progress at the appeals (Seoul High Court 2020 NU 43133) following the decision by the Supreme Court (reversed and remanded, Supreme Court 2019 DU 62604) remanding after reversal. Thus, the above third trial decision (Supreme Court 2019 DU 62604) is likely to be not a judgment by the court as a final trial.
Third Trial (Supreme Court 2019 DU 62604) The Supreme Court remanded and reversed to the court below to hear and judge the case again as it judged that the court below misunderstood the law on the proximate causation of occupational accident and failed to complete the necessary hearing, thereby making illegality that affected the judgment thereof.
▶ Even in the case of unknown cause of death, it can be inferred that ‘the chronic cardiovascular disease has worsened’
In this case, although an autopsy was not formed after the 2nd accident,
it is enough to infer that both 1st and 2nd accidents are worsening of cardiovascular disease, the chronic disease of B, by comprehensively summarizing the medical history of B and the diagnosis of the doctor who treated the deceased. ▶ In the event of a 2nd accident, the ‘relationship with the 1st accident’ shall be considered.
If the 1st accident is an occupational accident that has a proximate causation relationship with the work, then
the 2nd accident that has subsequently occurred is more likely to be caused by the natural deterioration of the 1st accident. And if the circumstance is as such, it is enough to consider that the 2nd accident is also an occupational accident caused by work (see Supreme Court Decision, Jan. 26, 1996, 95 NU 14282).
Thus, when determining whether the 2nd accident is an occupational accident, the focus shall be on whether the 1st accident is an occupational accident and whether the deceased was in a state of overworked objectively at the time of the 1st accident.
-The 1st accident of B is an occupational accident, which then worsened to affect the 2nd accident. Thus, the 2nd accident is also an occupational accident. 