Death After Three Consecutive Night Shifts... Supreme Court Rules "Work-Related Injury Even with Insufficient Working Hours"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that if a person dies during intense work and irregular night shifts, it should be considered an industrial accident even if the working hours do not meet the regulatory standards.

On the 12th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed the appeal filed by the spouse of deceased Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering employee Mr. A against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's refusal to pay survivor benefits and funeral expenses, and remanded the case to the Busan High Court with a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Mr. A had been working in assembly and welding at Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering shipyard since 2009 and died ten days after being diagnosed with acute myocarditis in November 2016. In the 12 weeks prior to his death, Mr. A worked 10 to 40 hours of night shifts weekly, with irregular day-night shift rotations. Even fifteen days before his death, he worked 10 hours of night shifts daily for three consecutive days.

Accordingly, the bereaved family claimed that the death was work-related and requested survivor benefits and funeral expenses from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service. However, the Service refused payment, stating that "it is difficult to recognize that acute myocarditis was caused by work-related overwork and stress or that it aggravated a pre-existing condition."

The first trial court dismissed Mr. A's claim, ruling that the acute myocarditis causing his death was a viral disease unrelated to welding work. The second trial court upheld the first court's decision, judging that Mr. A's working hours did not meet the Ministry of Employment and Labor's criteria for 'chronic excessive workload,' making it difficult to consider it overwork.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. A's irregular night shifts and high work intensity may have influenced his death and that the case should be re-examined. It pointed out that Mr. A was a healthy man without any special underlying diseases at the time, making it difficult to find other causes of death besides work-related factors.

In particular, the court focused on the Ministry of Employment and Labor's notice specifying 'work with unpredictable schedules,' 'shift work,' and 'physically demanding work' as factors that increase work burden. Even if Mr. A's working hours did not meet the 'excessive workload' criteria set by the relevant notice, it means that Mr. A can be considered overworked.

The court stated, "Mr. A worked more diligently than his colleagues, had a high work intensity, and given the somewhat insufficient workforce, it would have been difficult for him to take leave for personal reasons. The cumulative fatigue from day-night shift work likely caused the initial infection, and the infection worsened while he was working night shifts without rest, leading to his death."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.