Court Rules Stricter Care Worker Staffing Standards Lawful... Elderly Care Facilities Lose First Trial

"Legitimate Purpose: Ensuring Quality Services and Financial Stability for Long-Term Care Insurance"

Operators of elderly care facilities have lost a lawsuit in the first trial, after challenging the government's decision to strengthen the staffing requirements for care workers at such institutions and discontinue the additional staffing incentive system.

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on August 10, the Administrative Division 5 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Lee Jeongwon) recently ruled against twelve organizations operating elderly care facilities, including social welfare foundations, in a lawsuit filed against the Minister of Health and Welfare seeking to overturn the relevant notification.

In January last year, the Ministry of Health and Welfare revised its notification to strengthen the staffing standard for care workers in elderly care facilities from "one staff per 2.3 residents" to "one staff per 2.1 residents," and simultaneously abolished the incentive program for additional staffing through the same notification revision.

In response, operators of elderly care facilities filed an administrative lawsuit. They argued that facilities unable to assign the additional required care workers due to the stricter standard would either have to accept a reduction in their payment for violating the standard, or forcibly discharge existing residents to avoid being in violation of the standard.

However, the court determined that the ministry's notification was legitimate. The court stated, "This notification was issued to provide quality long-term care services, ease the excessive workload of care workers, and stabilize finances to establish a sustainable long-term care insurance system in light of the continued increase in beneficiaries due to aging population trends. The means chosen is appropriate for achieving the stated aims; therefore, both the legitimacy of the purpose and the appropriateness of the means are recognized."

The court further noted that since the standard fee was increased alongside the stricter staffing requirement, there is no basis to conclude that private interests were infringed upon. Regarding the operators' claim that abolishing only the additional staffing incentive for care workers, while maintaining it for social workers, nurses, and physical therapists, violated the principle of equality, the court responded, "Care workers have different assignments and standards compared with social workers and others, meaning they do not constitute a comparable group," and dismissed the claim.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.