Court: "If a rare disease occurs after receiving the flu vaccine, the health authorities should provide compensation"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A court ruling has been made that health authorities must compensate individuals who develop rare diseases after receiving a flu vaccine.

The Administrative Division 3 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Sangju Lee, Sooyoung Lee, Seungyeop Baek) announced on the 23rd that it overturned the first-instance dismissal of A (74) against the Director of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) regarding the rejection of his application for vaccination injury compensation, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The court stated, "There is a close temporal proximity between the vaccination and the onset of Guillain-Barr? syndrome," and added, "It is not impossible based on medical theory or empirical rules to infer that the disease was caused by the vaccination."

In October 2014, Mr. A received an influenza (flu) vaccination at a public health center located in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi Province. However, after the vaccination, he experienced diarrhea symptoms along with weakness in his legs and lower back. After visiting a nearby general hospital, Mr. A was diagnosed with Guillain-Barr? syndrome and was hospitalized for treatment. Guillain-Barr? syndrome is a disease in which inflammation occurs in the peripheral nerves, causing pain and paralysis symptoms that spread from the limbs to the torso and face. Mr. A believed that his Guillain-Barr? syndrome was caused by the vaccination and applied for vaccination injury compensation from the KDCA. However, since the causal relationship was not recognized, his application was dismissed, and Mr. A filed a lawsuit to overturn the previous decision.

The first-instance court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, stating that Mr. A filed the lawsuit after the 90-day statute of limitations following the KDCA’s rejection. A dismissal is a decision made without examining the merits when the lawsuit or claim is deemed improper or lacks necessary conditions. Considering the issue of the lawsuit period in the first trial, Mr. A changed his claim in the appeal to request the cancellation of the rejection of his objection rather than the initial dismissal. The second-instance court recognized that there was no problem with the lawsuit requirements and, after review, reached this conclusion.