After Decades of Coal Mine Security Duty, Lung Cancer... Court Recognizes Work-Relatedness

A court ruling has recognized that cases of death from lung cancer after decades of working as a 'security guard' in coal mines can be considered 'work-related injuries.'

According to the legal community on the 6th, the Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 13 (Presiding Judge Park Jeong-dae) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the first trial of a lawsuit filed by Mr. A's wife against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, seeking cancellation of the denial of survivor benefits and funeral expenses.

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

Previously, Mr. A worked in a coal mine for about 27 years starting in 1962. He worked as a coal miner for about five years but was found to have performed mostly security guard duties.

Mr. A was diagnosed with lung cancer in January 2016. While continuing treatment at a university hospital, he passed away in August of the same year. He had smoked one and a half packs a day for 25 years but had quit smoking 15 years before the lung cancer diagnosis. Mr. A's wife claimed that "her husband's death qualifies as a 'work-related injury'" and filed for survivor benefits and funeral expenses from the Service.

The Service refused the claim. Although it was confirmed that Mr. A died of lung cancer, since he worked mostly as a security guard, which was unrelated to dust exposure during his time at the coal mine, they judged that it could not be recognized as an 'occupational disease.' They also pointed out that the duration and amount of Mr. A's exposure to 'crystalline silica,' a carcinogen for lung cancer, were insufficient. Consequently, the wife turned to the administrative court.

The first trial ruled in favor of the wife, stating, "There is a significant causal relationship between Mr. A's work and the cause of death, lung cancer."

The court stated, "According to current research results, not only silica but also other types of fine dust and ultrafine dust, as well as other harmful substances generated in coal mines, can significantly influence the onset and worsening of lung cancer."

Furthermore, considering the statistical data that "even residents of nearby villages somewhat distant from the coal mine tunnels have a lung cancer incidence rate more than 10 times higher than other areas," it is unreasonable to categorically exclude the period during which Mr. A performed security duties near the coal mine, which is much closer, from consideration.

The court added, "If a lung cancer patient has at least 2 to 3 years of underground work history, it is considered the minimum requirement medically to recognize the occupational relevance of lung cancer. According to the wife's testimony, Mr. A performed coal mining work underground for up to six years. In addition, he worked as a security guard around the mine area for at least 20 years. Therefore, it is even more difficult to easily deny the occupational relevance of Mr. A's lung cancer."

The court also rejected the Service's claim that "Mr. A had never been diagnosed with pneumoconiosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, symptoms related to dust inhalation, before the lung cancer diagnosis."

The court explained, "There is little basis to deny the relationship between Mr. A's work and lung cancer," adding, "Just as smoking cannot be excluded as a cause of lung cancer simply because it developed 15 years after quitting smoking," the same logic applies." The judgment was also based on research findings that 'silica exposure increases the risk of lung cancer regardless of pneumoconiosis development' and the characteristic latency period of lung cancer, which averages 26.6 years.

The court stated, "It is difficult to say that Mr. A's work was the sole cause of his lung cancer," but added, "it can be presumed that Mr. A inhaled a significant amount of dust during his work, comparable to the harmful substances from smoking. At the very least, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. A's work was one of the factors that jointly caused or accelerated the progression of lung cancer along with smoking."

The Service has appealed the first trial ruling.