지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In regard to relatedness between work and diseases, there are two theories. One requires adequate causation between the two and the other does work relatedness rather than its adequate causation. From this point of view it may be more proper to say that it is sufficient only with reasonable relations.
Employers have the duty of protection against health hazards in work places, and it is needless to say that industrial accident insurance is more effective than tort.
In case that the causes of occupational diseases are one which the employee has had originally and the other which has aroused by health hazards of his work environment, Korean Supreme Court judges occupational diseases by relatively loose standards, and it thinks employees have the duty of proof. In spite of the judgements of the Supreme Court. I think employers should have the same kind of duty to prove evidences against the occurrence of the diseases during the employees’ work period.
Especially the number of diseases that occurred in certain hours and time after having injuries or accidents but the causes of the occurrence or deterioration of the diseases are unknown has increased. Practically because it is very difficult to assume the causation of the diseases and to measure carcinogens, the transfer of proof responsibility is needed. It is because it is difficult to accept occupational diseases only with the adequate causation that carcinogens can be the only reason of occupational cancer.
So we should acknowledge work related cancers caused by carcinogens.
Employers have the duty of protection against health hazards in work places, and it is needless to say that industrial accident insurance is more effective than tort.
In case that the causes of occupational diseases are one which the employee has had originally and the other which has aroused by health hazards of his work environment, Korean Supreme Court judges occupational diseases by relatively loose standards, and it thinks employees have the duty of proof. In spite of the judgements of the Supreme Court. I think employers should have the same kind of duty to prove evidences against the occurrence of the diseases during the employees’ work period.
Especially the number of diseases that occurred in certain hours and time after having injuries or accidents but the causes of the occurrence or deterioration of the diseases are unknown has increased. Practically because it is very difficult to assume the causation of the diseases and to measure carcinogens, the transfer of proof responsibility is needed. It is because it is difficult to accept occupational diseases only with the adequate causation that carcinogens can be the only reason of occupational cancer.
So we should acknowledge work related cancers caused by carcinogens.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 만성골수성 백혈병의 업무성 인정
Ⅲ. 직업성 암의 인정과 업무관련성
Ⅳ. 직업성 암관련 판결과 인과관계의 검토
Ⅴ. 직업성 암의 직업성 질병 인정과 근로자입증책임의 전환
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (25)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (5)
-
대법원 2000. 1. 28. 선고 99두10438 판결
[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제1호 소정의 업무상 재해를 인정하기 위한 업무와 재해 사이의 상당인과관계는 반드시 의학적·자연과학적으로 명백히 입증되어야 하는 것은 아니고 제반 사정을 고려할 때 업무와 재해 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 추단되는 경우에도 그 입증이 있다고 할 것이므로, 재해발생원인에 관한 직접적인 증거가 없는 경우라도
자세히 보기 -
서울고등법원 2006. 8. 18. 선고 2003누14293 판결
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1994. 5. 24. 선고 94누3056 판결
광부로 일하면서 얻게 된 진폐증으로 심폐기능이 약화된 상태에서 작업중 괴탄에 맞아 입은 추간판탈출증 등으로 병상생활을 계속하는 동안 업무상 질병이 호전되지 아니하고 심신의 기능이 쇠약해진 상태에서 척추수술을 받기 위해 입원대기중 정신적 스트레스까지 겹쳐 심근경색증으로 사망한 경우 업무상 재해에 해당한다고 본 사례.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2004. 4. 9. 선고 2003두12530 판결
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1994. 11. 11. 선고 94다30560 판결
가. 근로기준법 제82조 소정의 업무상 사망으로 인정되기 위하여는 당해 사망이 업무수행중 사망이어야 함은 물론이고 업무에 기인하여 발생한 것으로서 업무와 재해 사이에 상당인과관계가 있어야 하는 것이다.
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-330-003605963