Elder Abuse Death at Nursing Home... Court Says "Facility License Revocation Is Excessive"

Even if a death incident due to abuse occurred at a nursing home for the elderly, the court ruled that the cancellation of the nursing institution designation was unjust.

On the 2nd, according to the legal community, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 14 (Chief Judge Song Gak-yeop) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by A General Welfare Center against the Eunpyeong District Office to cancel the designation cancellation of the nursing institution.

A Welfare Center operated a nursing home for the elderly in Paju, and in January of last year, an incident occurred where Mr. B, who was living there, died. The Elderly Protection Agency, after investigating the scene, determined that Mr. B had suffered physical and neglect abuse and notified Eunpyeong District in June of the same year. The district office canceled the designation of A Welfare Center as a long-term elderly care institution in August of the same year. In response, A Welfare Center filed an administrative lawsuit claiming the disposition was unjust.

The court ruled in favor of A Welfare Center. The bench judged that it was difficult to consider that neglectful acts of neglecting basic protection and treatment had occurred. The court stated, “After confirming the first assault incident, A Welfare Center contacted the guardian and informed them, the guardian visited Mr. B, and through internal countermeasure meetings, arranged for Mr. B to receive hospital treatment, so it is difficult to consider that neglectful acts were committed.”

Furthermore, the court stated, “The nursing home has a capacity of 112 residents and currently houses about 80 residents,” and “If the nursing home’s designation is canceled, the residents living there would face the burden of moving to other nursing institutions, resulting in unreasonable consequences that do not align with the purpose of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act for the Elderly.” The court concluded, “This disposition is excessively severe compared to the content of the obligation violation and is therefore illegal as it significantly lacks rationality in social norms, constituting an abuse and deviation of discretionary power.”