Comparison of Asbestos Victim Relief Available Outside of Conventional Occupational Compensation Schemes

Kwang Min Lee, Lode Godderis, Sugio Furuya, Yoon Ji Kim and Dongmug Kang
Additional contact information
Kwang Min Lee: Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan 50612, Korea
Lode Godderis: Centre for Environment and Health, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
Sugio Furuya: Japan Occupational Safety and Health Resource Center, Tokyo 136-0071, Japan
Yoon Ji Kim: Department of Preventive, and Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Medical College, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea
Dongmug Kang: Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan 50612, Korea

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 10, 1-21

Abstract: The asbestos victim relief schemes were introduced to resolve the issue of victims of asbestos-related diseases not receiving compensation through conventional legal orders. This article seeks to derive the differences and commonalities of various asbestos victim relief schemes available outside of the conventional occupational compensation system along with a systematic understanding and to propose plans for improvement through a comparative study. After the degree of asbestos exposure, the population, and the period of implementation were corrected, the recognized claims of the total of conventional occupational compensation schemes and the asbestos victim relief schemes could be ranked in the order of South Korea (KOR) (1867, total), France (FRA) (1571), Japan (JPN) (966), KOR (847, asbestosis grade 2,3 excluded), the United Kingdom (GBR) (670), and the Netherlands (NLD) (95). The average amount of compensation per person, in the case of mesothelioma, was higher in the order of FRA (4.60 times), KOR (1.46 times), GBR (1.03 times), and NLD (0.73 times) of the median income per year. The differences between countries were largely caused by the purpose of institutional design and influenced by the level of qualification, the existence of an expiration date, type of disease, type of benefit, level of judgment criteria, the existence of a procedure for appeals, and recognition rate (GBR: 102%, FRA: 84%, NLD: 81%, JPN: 76%, KOR: 73%, and BEL: 54%). Based on this analysis, suggestions could be made regarding the expansion of disease types, benefit types, and the overall review of judgment criteria.

Keywords: asbestos; asbestos related disease; compensation; relief; comparison; system; non-occupational exposure; occupational exposure; claim; compensation amount (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5236/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5236/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5236-:d:554949

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().