Case Summary - Japan Compliance (Page 2)

Japan Compliance

Case Summary

A collection of 51 posts

Infographic summarising Japan Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling: uncle‑niece de facto marriage deemed eligible for survivor pension under special‑circumstances test.

Japan Supreme Court Approves Survivor Pension for Uncle‑Niece De Facto Marriage (2007)

TL;DR * Case: Supreme Court of Japan, 8 Mar 2007 (H17 (Gyo‑Hi) 354) * Issue: Can an uncle‑niece de facto marriage qualify a surviving partner for Employees’ Pension Insurance benefits despite Civil Code Art. 734? * Holding: Yes—in highly exceptional circumstances. The Court created a “special‑circumstances” test for

Slide summarising the 1983 Supreme Court ruling that long‑term separation (de facto divorce) bars a legal spouse from survivor pension benefits in Japan.

De Facto Divorce & Survivor Pensions: Japan Supreme Court’s Landmark 1983 Ruling

TL;DR In 1983 the Supreme Court of Japan denied survivor benefits to a legally married but long‑separated spouse, holding that “spouse” in social‑security statutes requires a living marital relationship. The ruling introduced the “de facto divorce” doctrine, prioritising substance over legal form when assessing pension eligibility. Table

Infographic summarizing Japan’s 2008 Supreme Court ruling on the “first consultation date” and disability‑pension eligibility

Japan’s Supreme Court Defines “First Consultation Date” for Disability Basic Pension Eligibility (2008)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (Oct 10 2008) ruled that the literal “first consultation date” (shoshinbi) — not the medical onset date — controls eligibility for the pre‑20 Disability Basic Pension. The Court favored textual certainty over disease‑specific flexibility, leaving legislative reform as the only remedy for students diagnosed

Slide summarizing the 2019 Supreme Court decision on when delay damages start in insurer subrogation under Japan’s elderly healthcare system.

When Do Delay Damages Begin? Japan’s Supreme Court Clarifies Insurer Subrogation (2019)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court ruled on 6 September 2019 that, in statutory subrogation under the Late‑Stage Elderly Healthcare System, delay damages (pre‑judgment interest) start the day after each medical benefit is paid by the insurer—not on the accident date and not on the date of

Infographic summarizing Japan’s 1998 Supreme Court decision: timeline of traffic accident, CALI payments, NHI benefits, and key holding on subrogation.

Coordinating Benefits: Japan's Supreme Court on Health Insurer Subrogation vs. Auto Liability Payments (September 10, 1998)

TL;DR The 1998 ruling by Japan’s Supreme Court held that payments made under Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance (CALI) extinguish the victim’s entire damages claim on a yen‑for‑yen basis, thereby limiting any subrogation rights of National Health Insurance (NHI) providers to amounts still outstanding at the

Diagram summarising Japan’s 2011 Supreme Court decision on mixed medical care, contrasting insured and uninsured treatments with Article 86 exceptions.

Japan’s Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Mixed Medical Care – Key Takeaways from the 2011 Judgment

TL;DR * In 2011 Japan’s Supreme Court confirmed that combining insured and uninsured treatments (“mixed medical care”) generally voids health‑insurance benefits unless strict Article 86 exceptions apply. * The Court grounded its reasoning in legislative history, system coherence and patient‑safety considerations, rejecting constitutional challenges. * The decision reinforces regulated

Diagram summarising Japan Supreme Court 2006 decision limiting correction rights over National Health Insurance receipts (Kyoto City case)

Supreme Court Narrows Correction Rights over Medical Receipts – Kyoto City Case (Japan, 2006)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (Mar 10 2006) held that an insured person cannot compel Kyoto City to “correct” dental treatment details on National Health Insurance receipts because the city keeps those receipts solely as financial evidence, not as medical records. The ruling clarifies the narrow scope of data‑

Summary slide illustrating the 1986 Supreme Court ruling tying High‑Cost Medical Expense Benefits to treatment compliance under the National Health Insurance Act.

When Treatment Standards Matter: Japan’s Supreme Court on High‑Cost Medical Expense Benefits (1986)

TL;DR In its 17 October 1986 ruling (Case No. 1986 (Gyo‑Tsu) 68), the Supreme Court of Japan confirmed that insurers may conduct substantive reviews of claimed treatments under the National Health Insurance Act and may deny High‑Cost Medical Expense Benefits when underlying care violates official standards. Non‑

Slide summarising Japan’s 1999 Supreme Court decision on long‑term assignment of future medical‑fee receivables: key facts, specificity & public‑policy test

Future Medical Fees as Collateral: Japan’s Supreme Court Validates Long‑Term Receivables Assignment (1999)

TL;DR The 1999 Supreme Court decision confirmed that long‑term assignments of future medical‑fee receivables are valid if (i) the claims are specifically identified and (ii) no special circumstances render the contract contrary to public policy. The ruling rejected lower‑court tests that hinged on the probability of

Summary slide illustrating the 1978 Supreme Court ruling that medical‑fee reductions (‘genten’) are not administrative dispositions and must be contested in civil court.

Japan Supreme Court on Medical‑Fee Reductions (1978): Why ‘Genten’ Isn’t an Administrative Disposition

TL;DR The 1978 Supreme Court clarified that fee “reductions” (genten) imposed by the Social Insurance Medical Fee Payment Fund are not administrative dispositions. Providers therefore must sue in ordinary civil court—rather than file an administrative revocation suit—to recover any amounts they believe were wrongly withheld. Table of

Diagram summarizing the 1973 Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court Clarifies Third‑Party Debtors in Japan’s Health Insurance (1973)

TL;DR (3‑sentence summary) The 1973 Supreme Court of Japan held that the Social Insurance Medical Fee Payment Fund and National Health Insurance Federations become direct debtors—“in their own name”—once they are delegated to review and pay claims. Because they owe a public‑law duty to pay

Single‑slide summary illustrating how a non‑binding hospital‑opening recommendation became judicially reviewable after Japan’s Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling.

Challenging "Guidance": Japan's Supreme Court on the Reviewability of Hospital Opening Recommendations (2005)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court held in 2005 that a seemingly non‑binding recommendation under the Medical Care Act becomes a reviewable “administrative disposition” when it predictably leads to denial of national health‑insurance designation, effectively blocking a new hospital from operating. Table of Contents * Background: Health Planning, Recommendations,

Key points of the 2022 Supreme Court decision on revoking dependent status under Japan’s Health Insurance Act, including appeal routes and 60‑day filing deadline — one‑slide summary.

Dependent Status Disputes in Japan's Health Insurance: Supreme Court Clarifies Appeal Routes (2022)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (Dec 13 2022) held that a notice revoking a spouse’s dependent status under the Health Insurance Act is an appealable administrative disposition. Such disputes must first go through the special two‑tier social‑insurance appeal system, but strict 60‑day filing limits apply—

Slide summarizing the 2004 Japan Supreme Court ruling on National Health Insurance eligibility for undocumented residents and the negligence standard for state liability.

Japan Supreme Court on Undocumented Residents’ NHI Eligibility & State Liability (2004)

TL;DRThe 2004 ruling held that an undocumented long‑term resident who had registered locally and applied for Special Permission for Residence could, in rare cases, meet the “address” requirement of Japan’s National Health Insurance Act.The denial of NHI coverage in the case was therefore illegal, yet no

Slide summarizing the 1965 Japanese Supreme Court ruling that administrative confirmation of social insurance qualification retroactively dates back to the employee’s first day of work.

When Does Coverage Begin? Japan's Supreme Court on Retroactive Effect in Social Insurance (1965)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (Y Co. case, 1965) held that employees automatically acquire Health Insurance Act and Employees’ Pension Insurance Act coverage from their first day of work. The administrative “confirmation” merely validates that fact and retroactively relates back, so premiums and benefits both run from the employment

Summary slide illustrating Japan’s 2021 Supreme Court decision requiring face‑to‑face pharmacist counselling for “Drugs Requiring Guidance” and its impact on online OTC sales.

Japan Supreme Court Confirms Face‑to‑Face Pharmacist Guidance for “Drugs Requiring Guidance” (2021 Online‑Pharmacy Ruling)

TL;DR Japan’s 2021 Supreme Court ruling upheld the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Act provision that “Drugs Requiring Guidance” must be sold only after face‑to‑face counselling by a pharmacist. The Court held that (i) protecting public health is a legitimate aim; (ii) in‑person interaction is a

One‑slide summary of Japan’s 2005 Supreme Court decision on denying insurance designation to a new hospital in a bed‑surplus region.

Can Japan Deny Insurance Status to New Hospitals? Supreme Court Balances Planning & Provider Rights (2005)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (2005) upheld a prefectural decision to deny a new hospital “Insurance Medical Institution” status because it ignored a non‑binding recommendation under the regional Medical Plan. The Court ruled that (i) the denial fit the Health Insurance Act’s clause for “extremely inappropriate” institutions,

One-slide summary illustration of the 1958 Supreme Court decision upholding compulsory National Health Insurance in Japan

Japan’s Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory National Health Insurance (1958)

TL;DR In 1958 the Japanese Supreme Court’s Grand Bench ruled that municipalities can mandate National Health Insurance enrollment and premiums without violating constitutional rights. Citing public welfare and mutual aid, the Court rejected claims under Articles 19 and 29 and confirmed the procedural validity of Ogi Town’s

Summary slide: 2017 Supreme Court ruling on survivor pensions – age rule for widowers, Article 14 equality test, key holdings and implications

Japan Supreme Court 2017 Survivor‑Pension Case: Why Age Rules for Widowers Survived an Equality Challenge

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (Mar 21 2017) upheld a Local Government Officials Accident Compensation Act rule that denies survivor pensions to husbands under 55, finding the gender‑based age threshold “not irrational” given labour‑market disparities. The Court applied a deferential Horiki‑style review under Article 14, leaving

Summary slide illustrating the 2006 Supreme Court ruling on National Health Insurance premium setting and hardship exemptions in Japan

Japan Supreme Court 2006: National Health Insurance Premiums & Hardship Exemptions Explained

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court Grand Bench (March 1, 2006) upheld Asahikawa City’s method of setting compulsory National Health Insurance (NHI) premiums and its narrow hardship‑exemption rule. The Court held that NHI premiums, although mandatory, are not “taxes” under Article 84 of the Constitution. Therefore, ordinances may

Slide summarizing Japan Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling that the Public Assistance Act excludes undocumented foreign residents, key holdings and constitutional context

Japan Supreme Court on Public Assistance for Undocumented Foreign Residents (2001)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (Sept 25 2001) held that undocumented foreign residents are not legally entitled to benefits under the Public Assistance Act. Relying on Horiki precedent, the Court ruled that (i) Article 25 imposes only a programmatic duty subject to broad legislative discretion, (ii) excluding undocumented residents

Infographic summarizing Japan’s 2007 Supreme Court ruling on student disability pensions

Student Disability Pension Gap: Why Japan’s Supreme Court Backed Voluntary Enrollment (2007)

TL;DR Japan’s Supreme Court (2007) upheld the constitutionality of the pre‑1989 National Pension framework that left some students disabled after age 20 without benefits. The Court applied an extremely deferential “markedly irrational” standard, ruled no violation of Articles 14 or 25 of the Constitution, and emphasized legislative

One‑slide summary showing Japan Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on pension cuts: elimination of 2.5 % special‑measure level, rationale of fiscal sustainability and inter‑generational fairness.

Japan Supreme Court 2023 Pension‑Cut Ruling: Balancing Sustainability and Recipient Rights

TL;DR * In December 2023 Japan’s Supreme Court upheld the 2012 law phasing out a 2.5 % “special‑measure” pension surplus. * The Court applied the Horiki standard: legislation is invalid only if “markedly irrational.” * Key justifications: inter‑generational fairness, fiscal sustainability, and restoring the macro‑economic slide. * Challenges based

Slide summarising the 2012 Old Age Addition case: phased abolition, two-prong process review, Article 25 implications

Japan's Supreme Court Upholds Welfare Benefit Cut: The 2012 Old Age Addition Case

TL;DR: The 2012 Old Age Addition case upheld the phased abolition of an extra welfare payment for seniors, confirming broad ministerial discretion under the Public Assistance Act and Article 25. The Court set a two-prong “process review” test: (1) rationality of need/adequacy assessment and (2) fairness of transitional

Slide summarising the 1982 Horiki Litigation: legislative discretion, non-combination of benefits, Article 25 threshold ‘markedly lacking in rationality’

The Horiki Litigation: Legislative Discretion and Social Security Benefits in Japan

TL;DR: The 1982 Horiki Litigation reaffirmed broad legislative discretion under Article 25, upholding a statutory “non-combination clause” that barred simultaneous receipt of a Disability Welfare Pension and a Child Rearing Allowance. The Supreme Court set a high bar—“markedly lacking in rationality”—for striking down social-security legislation. Table of