The Supreme Court has ruled that receiving a temporary compensation for vaccination-related disabilities does not automatically disqualify individuals from receiving additional medical expenses. The court emphasized that medical costs incurred before the compensation payment and necessary active treatment costs following disease recurrence or worsening should not be excluded from compensation.
According to legal sources on October 23, the Supreme Court's first division, led by Justice Shin Sook-hee, dismissed an appeal by the Korea Disease Control Agency (KDCA) against a lower court ruling that favored the plaintiff, the late Jeon Mo, in a lawsuit challenging the denial of additional medical expenses.
Jeon received an influenza vaccination at a public health center in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, in October 2014 and was later diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an acute paralytic disease. Despite hospitalization, he was classified as having a first-degree disability in June of the following year.
After his claim for vaccination injury compensation was denied in September 2015, Jeon filed a lawsuit and won in February 2021. The KDCA subsequently paid him approximately 325.78 million won ($275,000) in temporary compensation and medical expenses from October 2014 to July 2015.
However, medical expenses incurred during the ongoing lawsuit were not included in the compensation. In September 2021, Jeon requested an additional payment of 136.18 million won ($115,000) for medical expenses and 10.09 million won ($8,500) for nursing costs, but the KDCA rejected this request the following month, citing a provision in Article 29, Clause 1 of the Infectious Disease Control Act that restricts medical expense payments for those who have received temporary compensation.
The central issue in Jeon's subsequent lawsuit was the validity of this enforcement decree and the extent to which it could limit medical expense payments.
Both the first and second trials ruled that the enforcement decree exceeded the authority granted by the higher law and was therefore invalid. They argued that the Infectious Disease Control Act only delegated authority regarding the criteria and procedures for compensation payments, not the establishment of new grounds for payment restrictions not found in the law.
The Supreme Court upheld the conclusion that the denial of payment should be canceled but disagreed with the lower courts' determination that the enforcement decree itself was invalid.
The Supreme Court interpreted the relevant provision as a regulation limiting duplicate payments for 'conservative treatment medical expenses' incurred after receiving temporary compensation, asserting that these costs could be considered included in the compensation. Thus, limiting payments in this context was deemed lawful.
Conversely, the court ruled that medical expenses incurred before receiving temporary compensation or necessary active treatment costs following disease recurrence or worsening could not be restricted. This means that the assessment should not solely rely on whether compensation was received but should differentiate based on when the medical expenses were incurred and the nature of the treatment.
The Supreme Court determined that the KDCA's blanket denial of medical expenses incurred before Jeon's compensation receipt and potential active treatment costs thereafter was unlawful. Since it was difficult to separate the portions that should be paid, the entire denial of payment had to be canceled. This ruling confirmed the illegality of the denial but did not mandate the full payment of the additional claim.
Jeon passed away in June 2024, just before the appellate ruling. His heirs continued the lawsuit, ultimately achieving a final victory in the Supreme Court.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.