South Korea's top court rules vaccine-injury payout does not bar extra medical costs
In short
The Supreme Court's First Division upheld a ruling for the heirs of a man who developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after a 2014 flu vaccination. It held that receiving a lump-sum disability payment does not bar compensation for medical costs incurred before the payment or for active treatment afterwards. The court found the decree proviso valid but read it narrowly, which differs from the lower courts' reasoning.
Read the full story 2 min read
South Korea's Supreme Court has ruled that a person who received a lump-sum disability payment for a vaccine injury can still claim medical costs incurred before that payment, and the cost of active treatment afterwards. Citing legal circles, Yonhap and Asia Economy reported on 23 October that the court's First Division, with Shin Suk-hee (신숙희) as lead justice, recently confirmed a lower-court ruling for the plaintiff. [ 1 , 3 ]
The case was brought by the heirs of a man identified as A against the head of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. A received a flu vaccination in October 2014 and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome, and the following year he was assessed as having a grade 1 physical disability. Seoul Economic Daily reported that he applied for compensation in September 2015 and was refused, and that he then won a separate administrative lawsuit. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
In May 2021 the agency paid him about 325.78 million won, consisting of a lump-sum disability payment, medical costs and care costs. Seoul Economic Daily gave the lump sum as about 302.66 million won, with about 9.22 million won for medical costs and 13.9 million won for care. A then sought about 136.19 million won in medical costs he had not received. The agency refused, citing the proviso to Article 29 of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act enforcement decree, which says medical costs are not paid to someone who received the lump sum. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
The first and second courts ruled for A, finding that the proviso went beyond what the parent law delegated and unfairly discriminated against people who received the lump sum. The Supreme Court also sided with A but gave different reasons. It said the proviso is not invalid and must be read to mean that only the cost of conservative treatment after the lump-sum payment is not paid. Yonhap quoted the court as saying the content of the rule is within what could be predicted from the parent law itself and cannot be regarded as new legislation. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
The court said the proviso does not limit payment of costs incurred before the lump sum was received, or of active treatment afterwards, including when the illness recurs or worsens. It found the agency had refused, without distinction, costs from before the payment and costs that may have arisen afterwards from active treatment. Asia Economy reported the court said the parts that should be paid were hard to separate, so the whole refusal had to be cancelled. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
A died before the appeal court ruled, and his heirs took over the lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that the right to vaccine-injury compensation is a property right that passes to heirs under the Civil Act, according to Asia Economy. Seoul Economic Daily reported the court also found the heirs' taking over the suit lawful. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
Why it matters
The ruling sets out how the Infectious Disease Prevention Act decree proviso on medical costs is to be read: it covers only conservative treatment after a lump-sum payment. The outlets report that the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency's blanket refusal of the costs was held unlawful.
Key facts
- The Supreme Court's First Division (lead justice Shin Suk-hee, 신숙희) confirmed a lower-court ruling in favour of the heirs of a man identified as A, who had sued the head of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency over a refusal to pay additional medical costs. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- A received a flu vaccination in October 2014, was then diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome, and was assessed as having a grade 1 physical disability the following year. [ 1 , 3 ]
- In May 2021 the agency paid A a total of about 325.78 million won, made up of a lump-sum disability payment, medical costs and care costs. [ 1 , 4 ]
- A then asked for about 136.19 million won in unpaid medical costs; the agency refused, citing the proviso to Article 29 of the Infectious Disease Prevention Act enforcement decree. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- The Supreme Court said the proviso is not invalid but must be read as excluding only the cost of conservative treatment after the lump-sum payment. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- The court held that costs incurred before the lump-sum payment, and costs of active treatment afterwards, are not excluded. [ 3 , 4 ]
- A died before the appeal ruling, and the heirs took over the lawsuit. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- The Supreme Court confirmed the lower-court ruling for the plaintiff, cancelling the agency's refusal to pay the additional medical costs. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- The first and second courts found the decree proviso invalid, but the Supreme Court gave different reasons: it said the proviso is valid and must be interpreted narrowly. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- The Supreme Court said the proviso covers only the cost of conservative treatment after the lump-sum payment, not earlier costs or later active treatment. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- The agency rejected all the costs without distinguishing between them, which the court found wrong. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
- A's heirs were able to continue the lawsuit after A's death. [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]
Still unclear
- How much the agency will ultimately have to pay. The documents report the cancelled refusal and the 136.19 million won sought, but give no payment order or amount.
- Which period the unpaid medical costs cover. One outlet says costs up to July 2015 were included in the May 2021 payment, another says the unpaid costs arose during the litigation, and a third says the claim covered October 2014 to June 2021.
- Whether the agency will respond to the ruling. None of the documents gives a statement from the agency.