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.
Highlights
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 125 million people worldwide are exposed to asbestos at work, and 1.52 million disability adjusted life years (DALYs) are reported to be caused by asbestos [1]
In countries where worker’s compensation exists as a part of the social security system, occupational asbestos-related diseases (ARD) is compensated within this system and a new system was created to compensate asbestos victims outside the conventional occupational compensation schemes
In the case of occupational ARD, after receiving compensation from the worker’s compensation system, additional compensation can be received through FIVA
Summary
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 125 million people worldwide are exposed to asbestos at work, and 1.52 million disability adjusted life years (DALYs) are reported to be caused by asbestos [1]. Many countries have not intervened and left individuals to resolve the ever-increasing social disputes caused by ARD through civil proceedings [3,4]. This solution has had several problems [5,6]: (i) it is difficult to identify the perpetrator; (ii) in many cases, the perpetrator does not have the ability to compensate or does not longer exist; (iii) the social cost is high; (iv) it takes a long time to receive compensation.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International journal of environmental research and public health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
