Hospital Claiming "Cleaning and Laundry Are Therapeutic Activities"... Court Rules "Rights Violation"

The court ruled that a hospital that made patients do cleaning under the pretext of "rehabilitation training" infringed on the patients' right to receive treatment.

According to the legal community on the 27th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 14 (Chief Judge Sang-Hoon Lee) recently ruled against the plaintiff (Hospital A) in the first trial of a lawsuit filed against the National Human Rights Commission, in which Hospital A requested the cancellation of the decision recommending "to stop unfair labor imposition."

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

A hospitalized patient at Hospital A, which specializes in treating alcohol dependence, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in May 2020, stating that "the hospital is committing human rights violations such as unfair isolation, forced injections, cleaning, and restrictions on possession and use of mobile phones."

After completing the investigation, the Human Rights Commission recommended in August 2020 that the hospital "stop imposing labor such as cleaning, meal service, and laundry on patients, and in principle allow possession of mobile phones but restrict it to the minimum extent necessary for treatment purposes." They also advised that "staff human rights education should be conducted to prevent recurrence." However, the complaint regarding unfair isolation and forced injections was dismissed.

Hospital A filed an administrative lawsuit in objection. During the trial, the hospital argued that "there is no provision in relevant laws such as the Medical Service Act prohibiting rehabilitation therapy work like cleaning for psychiatric patients," and that "they have been conducting lawful occupational therapy by paying 1.7 times the minimum wage based on patients' consent and application."

The first trial sided with the Human Rights Commission. The court stated, "Imposing cleaning and other tasks on patients infringes on patients' right to receive treatment, which is derived from the 'human dignity and worth' and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution." It added, "Doctors have considerable discretion in choosing treatment methods, but such choices must not be arbitrary and must follow the conduct guidelines stipulated by law. The patient's right to self-determination regarding whether to undergo treatment must also be respected."

Furthermore, the court noted, "Since psychiatric inpatient treatment involves long hospitalization periods with a high risk of prolonged isolation from society, thorough measures must be taken to prevent related human rights violations," and pointed out, "Especially in mental health promotion facilities, imposing work or labor for convenience may lead to labor exploitation."

The court emphasized, "The requirements and procedures for imposing labor or work on inpatients need to be strictly applied," and said, "Cleaning in the hospital should naturally be provided by inpatients under the treatment contract, but the compensation for the labor in this case was paid only to a small number of participants in vocational rehabilitation programs."

The hospital's claim that "occupational therapy such as cleaning was conducted to manage stress, overcome alcohol cravings, improve interpersonal skills, and foster responsibility" was also rejected. The court judged, "This appears to be a vague and incidental effect, and there is no substantial evidence that such goals are effectively achieved through occupational therapy like cleaning."