Requirements for the recognition of additional diseases occurring during medical care due to occupational accidents as occupational accidents;

Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational accident, such as an injury or disease, caused by the worker's occupational accident during the performance of his/her duties. Therefore, in order to regard such additional diseases as an occupational accident as an occupational accident, at least there is a causal relationship between additional diseases and the initial injury or disease in order to regard them as an occupational accident.

Article 3(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Regional Labor Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 90Gu1107 delivered on May 15, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational accident, such as an injury or disease, caused by the worker's occupational accident during the performance of his/her duties. Thus, in the event that a new disease occurs during the medical care due to an occupational accident, it should be determined that there exists a causal relationship between such additional disease and the initial injury or disease in order to regard such additional disease as an occupational accident.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there exists a causal relationship between the injury and the above additional disease caused by occupational accident in this case, and the court below's above measures are justifiable in light of the records, and there is no ground to conclude that there is no illegality as alleged in the plaintiff's assertion. The plaintiff's assertion that the above additional disease was caused by occupational accident, and there is no evidence to support that there is a causal relationship between the injury and the above additional disease caused by occupational accident, and there is no ground to believe that there is no illegality in the theory.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)