February 21, 2013
The Saitama District Court on February 20 ruled that it was illegal for a city government to deny residents’ application for welfare benefits and ordered the city to pay 5.37 million yen to the plaintiffs.
A married couple, who used to live in Misato City, filed the lawsuit in 2007, demanding 10 million yen in compensation.
The couple in their court battle claimed that in 2005, they repeatedly visited the city’s welfare office to apply for welfare assistance because they had financial difficulties due to the husband’s leukemia. The welfare office, however, refused to accept the application every time. In April 2006, the city decided to provide assistance to the couple, but two months later, it instructed them to move to Tokyo. At that time, the city told them to not apply for public support at any municipality to which they relocated.
The husband died one year after they brought the case to the court.
The court acknowledged the city government’s denial of request for livelihood protection benefits as a breach of duty on the grounds that the city apparently understood that the plaintiffs had lost their main source of income because their family head developed leukemia.
The court also pointed out that it was inappropriate for the city to instruct the plaintiffs to not take counsel about livelihood protection with any municipality they relocated to.
A married couple, who used to live in Misato City, filed the lawsuit in 2007, demanding 10 million yen in compensation.
The couple in their court battle claimed that in 2005, they repeatedly visited the city’s welfare office to apply for welfare assistance because they had financial difficulties due to the husband’s leukemia. The welfare office, however, refused to accept the application every time. In April 2006, the city decided to provide assistance to the couple, but two months later, it instructed them to move to Tokyo. At that time, the city told them to not apply for public support at any municipality to which they relocated.
The husband died one year after they brought the case to the court.
The court acknowledged the city government’s denial of request for livelihood protection benefits as a breach of duty on the grounds that the city apparently understood that the plaintiffs had lost their main source of income because their family head developed leukemia.
The court also pointed out that it was inappropriate for the city to instruct the plaintiffs to not take counsel about livelihood protection with any municipality they relocated to.
