A court found that it was wrong for the Ministry of Personnel Management to deny medical care benefits to a firefighter with leukemia on the grounds that for a considerable period the person served as a department head and fire station chief rather than at fire scenes.
The Seoul Administrative Court's single-judge bench No. 8 (Judge Moon Ji-yong) said on the 14th that on Oct. 22 it ruled to cancel the Ministry of Personnel Management's decision to deny on-duty medical care for firefighter A.
A was appointed as a firefighter in 1995 and was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia in 2021 while serving. A then applied to the Government Employees Pension Service for on-duty medical care benefits.
Medical care benefits for public officials support costs such as diagnostic fees, drug expenses, and surgery when treatment and rehabilitation are needed due to injuries or illnesses sustained in the performance of duty. Under the Public Officials Occupational Accident Compensation Act, the Ministry of Personnel Management decides approval after deliberation by the Public Officials Occupational Accident Compensation Committee.
However, on Mar. 20, 2023, the Ministry of Personnel Management denied A's application, reasoning that A performed firefighting and rescue duties only for the first 2 years and 2 months after appointment as a firefighter, and leukemia developed 22 years after that.
A filed an administrative suit with the Seoul Administrative Court. A argued that while serving as a firefighter, personal protective equipment was not sufficiently provided, and A was repeatedly dispatched to fire scenes, leading to continuous exposure to hazardous substances such as benzene and formaldehyde.
A also said that even after the initial appointment period, A served as the head of a firefighting unit, a duty officer in charge, and a fire station chief, commanding fire scenes, and in the process was exposed to hazardous substances like frontline firefighters. With no family history, A argued there is a substantial causal relationship between the duty and the onset of leukemia.
In response, the Ministry of Personnel Management countered, "When a fire breaks out during duty, it is typical for frontline dispatch units and the headquarters on-site command team to respond, so it is rare for the duty officer acting for the fire station chief to go directly to the scene and command." However, the B Fire Headquarters stated, "The duty officer in charge must respond to and command all scenes."
The Ministry of Personnel Management also claimed that A mainly performed administrative tasks while serving as a dispatch unit chief, but fellow firefighters testified that A actually responded to fire scenes. The B Fire Headquarters confirmed, "The dispatch unit chief must respond to all fires."
According to tallies by the B Fire Headquarters, A was dispatched to a total of 1,431 fire scenes during the period of service. This included 420 cases as a duty officer in charge and 69 cases as a fire station chief.
The Administrative Court said, "It can be recognized that over more than 26 years, A was dispatched to at least hundreds of fire scenes and, while conducting firefighting and rescue activities, was exposed to hazardous substances such as benzene."
It went on, "When petrochemical products burn, benzene is likely to be released, and if a firefighter is exposed to benzene at a fire scene, leukemia can develop," finding the Ministry of Personnel Management's disposition unlawful.