미국 연방법상 업무상 자살의 증명책임

Abstract

In this article, we've looked at examples of the application of worker’s industrial accident compensation(Workers' compensation) laws and procedures under US federal law, especially suicide from performance of employee's duties and burden of proof under U.S. federal law and cases. Then, we examined the implications for Korea's related legal systems. As a result, the differences from judgment procedures and standards in Korea Workers' compensation are as follows. First, if the administrative agency's decision on Workers' compensation is damaged, the court will destroy it and return it to the agency again. This is a "Remand without Vacation" system. Second, the US provides substantial evidence standards under the Administrative Procedure Act. It holds unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary and capricious, substantial evidence, and trial de novo by the reviewing court. Third, federal law applies the principle of presumption to Workers' compensation. That is, if the administrative agency does not provide substantive evidence against the claimant's allegations, the principle of presumption applies. As a result, work-related accidents are recognized. Thus, US federal law gives the Mitigation of the Burden of Proof to government agencies with worker’s compensation. This gives severity to the agency. And this reduces the burden of proof on the affected workers. From now on, the allocation of burden of proof must be legislative. Both sides claiming the certification of Workers' compensation must provide substantive evidence. And the result of presumptions based on this should be derived. It is necessary to reconstruct the legal system for this purpose.