[Violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act Won Case] Won at the Appellate Trial for Violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act

The client, who had pursued litigation for violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, objected to the result of the first instance and decided to proceed with the appellate trial.

While receiving inpatient treatment at a long-term care hospital, the client developed an anal fissure, acute kidney injury, and other conditions due to the negligence of the hospital's medical staff in their duty of monitoring, supervision, and care.

Before the client was admitted to the long-term care hospital, the client's kidney function and other functions were all normal, apart from weakened respiratory function due to prolonged bedridden living.

The client filed a complaint against the hospital's medical staff for violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, but considered the sentence at the first instance too light and unjust, and so wished to proceed with the appellate trial.

■ Laws Related to Violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act and the Level of Punishment

▶ Article 59-9 (Prohibited Acts)

No person may engage in any of the following acts.

1. An act of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or the like that causes sexual humiliation to a person with a disability

2. An act of assaulting or inflicting bodily injury on a person with a disability

2-2. An act of forcing a person with a disability to perform labor contrary to the person's free will by means of assault, intimidation, confinement, or any other means that unjustly restricts mental or physical freedom

3. An act of neglect, such as abandoning a person with a disability under one's protection or supervision, or neglecting basic protection and treatment, including food, clothing, and shelter

4. An act of having a person with a disability beg, or begging by using a person with a disability

5. An act of arresting or confining a person with a disability

6. An act of emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of a person with a disability

7. An act of using money or goods donated or paid for a person with a disability for purposes other than the intended purpose

8. An act of having a person with a disability perform acrobatics harmful to the person's health or safety for the purpose of public entertainment or amusement

▶ Article 86 (Penal Provisions)

(2) A person falling under any of the following shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 7 years or a fine of not more than 70 million won.

1. A person who has committed an act under Article 59-9, subparagraph 2 (limited to bodily injury)

(3) A person falling under any of the following shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than 50 million won.

3. A person who has committed an act falling under Article 59-9, subparagraph 2 (limited to assault) through subparagraph 6

Daeryun argued that the long-term care hospital's medical staff abused the client in violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act and inflicted bodily injury.

The staff not only inflicted an anal fissure injury by failing to clean the client's stool, but also caused large bruises on the body through assault and abuse.

The firm appealed that this constituted "bodily injury" under Article 89 (2) 1 of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act or "assault" under Article 86 (3) 3 of the same Act.

Daeryun's specialist lawyer submitted evidence to prove the violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Using nursing records, hospitalization progress records, diagnostic test result sheets, referrals to other departments, and similar materials, the firm argued that the reason the client's physical symptoms worsened was the negligence of the long-term care hospital, such as poor progress observation and treatment.

As a result, the firm appealed that the client was suffering physical and mental distress, including acute kidney injury.

Daeryun's specialist lawyer argued that the long-term care hospital operator violated the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act by failing to perform its duties.

An operator of a long-term care hospital has a duty to monitor and observe whether patient management is being carried out appropriately, through sufficient education, guidance, and supervision of caregivers.

The firm argued that, because the operator neglected this responsibility and caused harm to the client, the conduct constituted criminal liability under Article 89 of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act.

The client in this case objected to the result of the first instance in the litigation for violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act and came to Daeryun to proceed with the appellate trial.

Daeryun's specialist lawyer assisted with the overall procedure of the appellate trial through close consultation with the client.

As a result of the litigation, the court accepted Daeryun's arguments, the practitioners at the long-term care hospital who had harmed the client received greater punishment, and the case was won.

If anyone is troubled by a situation similar to the client's above, please feel free to come to Daeryun Law Firm at any time.