Ⅵ. A Stroke Occurring on the Lunch Break Recognized as from an Occupational Illness

A. Case Summary

1. The victim of the occupational disease, (hereafter referred to as “Employee”), was hired by the Korea Agriculture Corporation (hereafter referred to as “Company”) in November 1973. The Employee was promoted in December 1998, and since 2000 had been working as branch manager of the Yungi branch office affiliated with the Yungi-daegum Division.
2. While the Employee was having lunch with his coworkers at a nearby restaurant at 12:10 on March 2, 2005, he collapsed unconscious and was taken to University Hospital, where he died from a stroke and bleeding to the brain at 2 am on March 13, 2005.
3. The Employee’s survivor visited this labor attorney and entrusted the case. The survivor applied for payment of survivor’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Branch Office of the Employee Welfare Corporation (EWC) on June 8, 2005, but the Branch Office rejected the application on August 10, 2005 as having no considerable causality between the Employee’s work and death.
4. The survivor applied for examination of the Branch Office’s rejection to the Head Office of the EWC on September 28, 2005, but the Head Office rejected the application on November 21, 2005. Then, the survivor applied for examination of the Head Office’s rejection to the Commission of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance on April 18, 2006.
5. The survivor filed a lawsuit with Deajeon District Court in August 2006 and won.

B. Employee Welfare Corporation’s Claim

1. According to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (IACI Act), the term “occupational accident” means any wound, disease, physical disability, or death of a worker, which is caused by his/her duties. That is, there shall be considerable causality between the employee’s work and disease. This considerable causality requires objective facts to be recognizable by which the cause of the accident is attributable to the work and by which the disease worsened remarkably in excess of natural speed. Accordingly, this work-related accident shall be decided by medical opinions based upon such facts.
2. We reached our conclusion after considering the disease process, work performance and medical opinions. While having lunch at 12:10 on March 2, 2005, the Employee was acting unusually, rubbing his eyes often etc., and was taken by ambulance to University Hospital where he had surgery, but died. So, the Employee’s disease cannot be recognized as an accident occurring at work. We also confirmed that there had not been any apparent occurrences of chronic fatigue at work recently or sudden changes in the work environment on the day of occurrence or before. Although it was assumed that the Employee had some psychological stresses due to scoring the lowest during the company’s business evaluation in 2004 and some parts of his work had led to a heavier workload since the area of his Branch Office was chosen as the Administration-centered Complex City, there are a shortage of medical opinions that such work performance could result in a stroke. However, there are a majority of medical opinions that his accident occurred naturally due to potential risk factors causing a stroke like his high blood pressure, the fact he was overweight, etc. Accordingly, in light of the aforementioned facts, it is difficult to recognize considerable causality between the Employee’s death and his work.

C. Survivors’ Claim

1. The accident occurred during recess hours (lunch time), which means it is not related to work performance
Rebuttal: According to a Supreme Court ruling, if the employee’s behaviors are physiologically required, reasonable and necessary actions in relation to labor service after recess hours, an incident shall be recognized as a work-related accident. Supreme Court ruling on Apr. 25, 2004, 2000da2030


2. There has not been any apparent sign of chronic fatigue at work recently or sudden changes in the work environment on the day of occurrence or before
Rebuttal: The area surrounding Yungi branch office, which the Employee was in charge of, was chosen to be part of the administration-centered complex city. Due to this change, there have been more questions and complaints from residents, which disrupted the “Large Scale Project of Agricultural Land” and resulted in the lowest business performance for the Yungi-daegum Division, which his branch office comprises, among regional Agricultural Corporation divisions. The Division director, who was appointed in early January 2005, changed the annual Branch Managers’ meeting to twice a year, pushing for better result from each branch office. The Employee particularly paid more attention to the Large Scale Project as it was more easily evaluated as the outcomes would be in digital form. So, the employee strove to make the most of his personal networks in January and February, and promoted the Large Scale Project through his relatives and friends, which resulted in him being chosen the top manager in business performance of the 27 managers in the division concerned.

3. The day before the accident was a holiday
Rebuttal: The employee drank a lot because of a quarrel with another coworker over the Large Scale Project on February 28 (Monday). While he rested at home on March 1 (Tuesday, a holiday), he called landowners in relation to the Large Scale Project. This showed that he worked on his Project-related duties even during holidays.

D. Related Legal Regulations

1. Related Law (the IACI Act)
Article 5 (Definition), the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act:
The term “occupational accident” means any wound, disease, physical disability, or death of a worker, which is caused by his/her duties.
Article 39 (Occupational Disease or Death caused by an Occupational Reason), Ministry of Employment and Labor Ordinance.
The criteria for recognizing occupational accidents concerning “occupational disease or death caused by an occupational reason” are described in the following table:


[Attachment 1] The criteria for recognizing occupational accidents concerning ‘occupational disease or death caused by an occupational reason:
1. Cerebral accident or cardiac disorder
(1) When an employee at work had such diseases as Intra-cerebral Hemorrhage, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Cerebral Infarction, Hypertensive Encephalopathy, Angina Pectoris, Myocardial Infarction, and Aortic Dissection, or died due to the aforementioned diseases, this is a work-related illness. In cases where the incident occurred outside working hours, if considerable causality between the occurrence of the incident or its deterioration and the work was evident from medical perspectives and in terms of timing, it is regarded as a work-related accident.
1) In cases where sudden and unexpected tension, excitement, horror, surprise and sudden changes at work environment causes remarkably physiological changes to the employee;
2) In cases where the increase of work burden like the volume of work, time, intensity, responsibility, and changes in the work environment causes chronic physical and mental fatigue to the employee; and
3) In cases where Intra-cerebral Hemorrhage and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage occurred during working hours or where the reasons for death from the same illnesses were not verified medically to be the result of natural deterioration.
(2) “Sudden changes at work environment” stipulated in Subparagraph (1) means the impact of the workload change is apparent enough to affect normal function of cerebral blood vessels or cardiac blood vessels.
(3) “Chronic fatigue” stipulated in Paragraph (2) means that the employee’s work volume and working hours increased 30% or more continuously for three days over normal work, or that the employee’s work volume, working hours, intensity, responsibility or working environment has changed dramatically enough for ordinary people to be unable to adjust.


2. Related ruling Supreme Court ruling on Mar. 9, 2006. 2005du13841

According to Article 5 (1) of the IACI Act, “occupational illness” refers to any disease caused by a worker’s duties, and there shall be causality between the employee’s work and the illness. Even if there is no direct relationship between the main cause of the illness and work performance, if occupational fatigue or stress overlap with the main causes, causing or deteriorating the illness, it is assumed that there is causality between them. Cause and effect shall not only be verified in terms of medical or physical science. If it is assumed that there is considerable causality between the work and the illness in considering all given facts, it shall be regarded as verification. In cases where the basic or potential illness that has thus far not interfered with carrying out normal work duties suddenly deteriorates faster than normal due to a heavy workload, it shall also be regarded as verification. Whether there is causality between the work and the death shall be estimated not only by the health and physical conditions of the average employee, but also of the employee concerned.

E. Conclusion Daejeon District Court ruling on Apr. 18, 2007, 2006guhap3836


1. The Employee had suffered from chronic fatigue and stress since January 2005 due to the Yungi-daegum Division’s poor business performance in relation to the Large Scale Project of Agricultural Land,” the urgings of the new division director appointed in January 2005, difficulties in implementing the Large Scale Project because of construction plans for the Administration-centered Complex City, and repeated failure in promotion and his proactive efforts not to miss the last opportunity for promotion.
2. The Employee had a minor stroke in July 1988 and was hospitalized for regular and visiting treatment. As the Employee received treatment for high blood pressure up to his death, it can be assumed that his occupational fatigue and stress may have deteriorated his chronic condition.
3. As we review that the cause of the Employee’s death was a stroke that caused bleeding on the brain, and that it was a recurrence of his past stroke, it is estimated that his past stroke from occupational fatigue and stress and his chronic high blood pressure suddenly deteriorated faster than normal or recurred, which led to bleeding on the brain and caused the death of the Employee. Accordingly, this incident is an occupational illness under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.