Death After Vaccination at School... Court Rules "Not Eligible for Family Compensation"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The bereaved family of a student who died about six months after receiving three types of vaccines listed in the school's admission guidance documents filed an appeal lawsuit against the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA), which rejected their compensation application, but lost in the first trial.

According to the legal community on the 20th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 7 (Chief Judge Jeong Sanggyu) recently ruled against the plaintiff in the first trial of the lawsuit filed by the family of A against the KDCA to cancel the rejection of their compensation application.

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

A enrolled as a new student at a domestic gifted school in 2019. Before admission, the school informed, "You must submit health documents related to vaccinations." The form listed hepatitis A, hepatitis B, typhoid fever, and other diseases as subjects for vaccination.

On January 25 of that year, A received a typhoid fever vaccine at a public health center. Four days later, he received the hepatitis B vaccine. Two days after that, he was vaccinated against hepatitis A. Then, on July 28 of the same year, he was found dead on his bed. The National Forensic Service determined the cause of death as 'unknown' after an autopsy.

The bereaved family claimed, "A died due to the vaccinations," and applied for compensation such as death compensation under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The KDCA rejected the application, stating, "The applicant does not meet the criteria for compensation."

The family filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that "rejecting the application itself is illegal." During the trial, they appealed, saying, "The KDCA should first accept the compensation application and then formally reject it after reviewing the eligibility requirements," and "A's vaccinations fall under infectious diseases specified by the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act and the KDCA's vaccination implementation standards and methods."

The first trial court did not accept these claims. The court stated first, "Whether A is a person who received the vaccine as a mandatory vaccination subject and other matters related to eligibility for compensation are not subject to review by the Vaccination Damage Compensation Expert Committee according to regulations."

Furthermore, "Although hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and typhoid fever, which A was vaccinated against, are included among the 16 infectious diseases subject to mandatory vaccination under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, A is not a subject of these vaccinations." According to regulations, the target for hepatitis A vaccination is 'infants and young children,' and the target for hepatitis B vaccination is 'newborns, infants, and family members of virus carriers.'

Regarding the family's claim that "A was vaccinated against typhoid fever due to the school's compulsion to accept students from regions with many typhoid carriers," the court also rejected it, stating, "A's vaccination cannot be considered a vaccination under Article 24 of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act that qualifies for compensation."

The court added, "It is true that the school, which operates dormitory life, group meals, overseas entrusted education, and overseas volunteer programs, requires incoming students to receive the typhoid fever vaccine," but "this circumstance alone does not qualify A as a 'person in close contact with carriers' or 'a person traveling to an epidemic area,' who are subjects for typhoid vaccination."

The bereaved family appealed the first trial court's decision.