In a case in which a Fukuoka patient sued the country that it was unreasonable to reduce the national benefits to patients with recurrent hepatitis B 20 years after the onset, the Supreme Court filed a proceeding on the patient's side. He decided that compensation should be granted without admitting and reducing the amount.

Two patients in their 60s in Fukuoka Prefecture have complained that it is unreasonable for the national benefits for patients with recurrent hepatitis B to be reduced 20 years after the first onset.



The Fukuoka District Court in the first instance admitted the proceedings on the part of the patient and ordered the government to compensate, while the Fukuoka High Court in the second instance said, "It cannot be said that the recurrent chronic hepatitis is qualitatively different from the one that had previously developed." I canceled the trial and dismissed the patient's complaint.

Regarding this, Judge Mamoru Miura of the Second Small Court of the Supreme Court pointed out in a judgment that "the symptoms of chronic hepatitis are qualitatively different between the initial onset and recurrence. The standard of compensation for damages should be at the time of recurrence." Did.



After that, he decided that the patient's proceedings should be accepted and the compensation should be granted without reducing the amount, and the judgment of the second instance was revoked, and the high court ordered the compensation amount to be retried.



In addition, Judge Miura commented, "Given the fact that the damage has been extremely long-term, the government will hold necessary discussions to seek an overall solution, including patients who are in the same situation as the patients who have relapsed this time. I hope that we will properly fulfill our duty of relief for the victims, "he said, calling on the State to work broadly on the relief of the victims.