Sought treatment at five clinics before taking her own life; family argues vaccine side effects led to her death; first trial ruled against family, appeal underway

This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]
This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]

A court has ruled against recognizing the death of a civil servant in her 50s as a line-of-duty fatality. The woman died by suicide seven months after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, having suffered unexplained full-body pain, but the court found no causal link between the vaccination and her death.

Judge Lee Yeong-gwang of Daejeon District Court's Administrative Division 1 ruled against the family of the woman, identified only as A, on June 11, dismissing their lawsuit seeking line-of-duty recognition against the Ministry of Personnel Management. The court cited, among other reasons, that "considering the average person's will to fight illness, the period appears relatively short to reach such an extreme choice."

A worked as a postal service civil servant at a post office and died by suicide in 2022, seven months after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Her family said she had suffered physical pain — including chest pain and unexplained full-body pain — following the vaccination and died as a result of the stress, arguing her death should be recognized as a line-of-duty death.

The Ministry of Personnel Management had already denied the family's claim for line-of-duty survivor benefits. In September 2022, the ministry rejected the claim, saying there was "no causal relationship between A's COVID-19 vaccination and her official duties" and that her death "cannot be seen as resulting from work-related factors." The family filed a lawsuit challenging that decision in August 2023.

The court, however, also ruled against the family.

The first-instance court said it was "insufficient to find that A had engaged in self-harm while her normal cognitive capacity was markedly diminished due to work-related reasons."

The court said A "received the vaccine in accordance with voluntary vaccination guidance" and that it was "difficult to regard this as an act related to official duties." It added that "the family claims there was an atmosphere of coercion regarding vaccination within the post office, but there is no evidence to support this."

The court further said that "even if A's vaccination had been carried out in connection with her official duties, it is also insufficient to find that she reached the point of taking her own life while her normal cognitive capacity was markedly diminished as a result of the vaccination."

The court did acknowledge several facts: that A, who had received normal results in prior health checkups, was hospitalized for a period after the vaccination due to chest pain and muscle pain; that she was diagnosed with unspecified full-body pain and other complications from vaccination; and that she had received treatment for unspecified pain and insomnia at five or more hospitals and traditional medicine clinics up until the day before her death.

The court also acknowledged that medical specialists had submitted opinions stating that A was "presumed to have experienced pain as a side effect of the vaccine" and that "depression caused by persistent, unrelieved pain is presumed to have been a cause of her taking her own life."

Nevertheless, the court said the roughly seven months between A's vaccination and her death was "a relatively short period to take such an extreme step given the average person's will to fight illness." It concluded that "it is more probable that she reached that point due to physical or psychological circumstances other than the vaccination."

The court added that "A had also previously received treatment for various pain- and inflammation-related conditions before the vaccination," and concluded that the ministry's decision was justified.

The ruling has not yet been finalized. The family filed an appeal on June 22, and a second-instance trial is expected to proceed.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com