Hepatitis B Transmission Among Fellow Firefighters via Blood Transfusion → Cancer and Suicide "Occupational Hazard Death" [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

Supreme Court: "Not Ordinary Duty Death but Death in Hazardous Duty"

[Image source=Getty Images]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Mr. A was a firefighter. On November 23, 1984, while working at the Dongbu Fire Station in Gwangju Metropolitan City, he was dispatched to extinguish a fire. At the moment he attempted to enter through the second-floor window of the burning building, he was electrocuted and his body stiffened. Glass shards pierced his thigh. Due to severe bleeding, he received a blood transfusion from his colleague Mr. B during surgery. However, it was revealed that Mr. B was a 'carrier of the hepatitis B virus.' Mr. B was diagnosed with liver cancer in 2000 and died three years later.

Mr. A also developed illnesses. In 2011, he was diagnosed with hepatitis B, cirrhosis, and liver cancer. Treatment was ineffective. Mr. A left the fire station in 2013 and left the following message to his colleagues.

"My health deteriorated, and I had no choice but to apply for retirement, which makes me feel miserable. More painful than physical suffering was the loneliness of feeling alienated and the breaking of relationships with people. Please understand even a little the sorrow of a disabled firefighter who was injured in the line of duty during his youth and lives shedding tears in secret."

Afterwards, he repeatedly suffered from severe pain that could not be controlled even with painkillers. The pain and fever were so intense that he could not sleep, and he even had to rest on benches outside the hospital. His psychological state also worsened. About 20 days after retirement, he fell from his apartment where he lived and passed away.

The Ministry of Personnel Management recognized Mr. A's death as a 'work-related injury' and paid survivor compensation. However, the bereaved family argued that since Mr. A was injured and died while performing dangerous duties such as firefighting, it should be classified as 'death in the line of dangerous duty,' not general death in the line of duty. The Ministry of Personnel Management stated, "Mr. A's death does not meet the criteria for death in the line of dangerous duty," and did not accept this claim, leading the family to file a lawsuit.

The first trial ruled in favor of the bereaved family. The first trial court stated, "Firefighting is a duty involving a high risk to life and body. The injury in this case clearly occurred during the performance of dangerous duties," and emphasized, "It should not be viewed differently just because a considerable amount of time passed between the injury and the onset of disease." Mr. A's disease was contracted during surgery to treat injuries sustained while firefighting, and he died after enduring severe pain caused by the disease.

The second trial and the Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. On the 24th, the Supreme Court Division 2 (Presiding Justice Min Yusook) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of Mr. A's family in the appeal case against the Ministry of Personnel Management's decision to deny survivor benefits for death in the line of dangerous duty. The Supreme Court stated, "The lower court's conclusion that the harm Mr. A suffered while performing dangerous duties was the direct and main cause of his death is appropriate," and "The lower court did not err in its interpretation of the 'direct causal relationship, etc.' under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the former Public Officials Pension Act, nor did it make any mistakes affecting the judgment."

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