Member of the National Assembly Collapses from Cerebral Disease While on Duty... Court Rules “Compensation Only for Physical Injury”

[Financial News] The court has ruled that medical expenses for a Member of the National Assembly who collapsed while on duty can only be provided if the incident is classified as a 'physical injury' caused by external factors, not a disease.
According to the legal community on the 8th, the Seoul Administrative Court's Division 3 (Presiding Judge Choi Soo-jin) ruled against former Member of the National Assembly A in a lawsuit against the state seeking reimbursement for medical expenses.
In September 2018, former Member A collapsed in his office due to symptoms such as a blocked cerebral blood vessel while working. Although he recovered his health after treatment, he was registered as a person with a severe disability in 2020 due to aftereffects.
Last year, former Member A filed a claim with the National Assembly Secretariat for medical expenses and six months' allowance, asserting that his disability was caused by work duties. However, the National Assembly rejected the claim, stating that the case did not constitute a physical injury.
Former Member A argued that, in the absence of any pre-existing condition, damage to his cerebral blood vessels was caused by work-related stress and thus should be considered an injury rather than a disease. The Act on Allowances, etc. of Members of the National Assembly stipulates that if a Member of the National Assembly sustains an injury in the course of duty, all medical expenses are to be covered, and if the injury results in a physical disability, six months' worth of allowances are to be paid.
However, the court did not accept former Member A's argument. The panel defined injury as 'generally, external physical damage caused by an external physical impact,' and noted that former Member A's health issue differed from such an injury.
The court stated, 'The plaintiff claims that not only physical wounds but also functional impairment of the body should be included as injuries, but such an interpretation is not appropriate given the different legal interests and scope of application.' The court further explained, 'The plaintiff's symptoms, such as a blocked cerebral blood vessel, manifested while working in the office, but were not caused by an external factor such as a blow to the head. Therefore, this incident should be considered a disease, not an injury.'
theknight@fnnews.com Jung Kyung-soo Reporter