Fukushima and Hiroshima: Two Years After the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake, Part 2
Mar. 19, 2013
Judicial field: Support from the A-bombed city in seeking compensation for damages
by Gosuke Nagahisa, Staff Writer
“In the judicial field, too, the knowledge that has accumulated in the A-bombed city of Hiroshima can surely be used when it comes to cases involving Fukushima,” stressed Takashi Hashimoto, 42, a lawyer. In February, Mr. Hashimoto joined a group of 18 Hiroshima-based lawyers who belong to the Hiroshima Bar Association and support claims for compensation for damages caused by the nuclear power station in Fukushima.
Mr. Hashimoto also serves as one of the representatives of plaintiffs now waging a legal battle at the Hiroshima District Court, in which 26 A-bomb survivors are seeking certification for A-bomb-related diseases.
“Radioactivity doesn’t simply do harm in a concentric fashion,” Mr. Hashimoto said. “In the case of internal exposure to radiation, the harm to health can appear several decades later.” With his experience representing A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima, he now ponders how legal assistance for Fukushima plaintiffs should be pursued.
In Hiroshima, many lawyers have stood by A-bomb survivors to provide legal support. For instance, working with lawyers of other areas, they won a series of class action lawsuits involving the certification of A-bomb diseases, which led to considerable relaxing, in April 2008, of the criteria used for this certification process.
Still, legal battles over the issue of A-bomb disease certification have continued. Even after the criteria for certification was eased, applications by survivors for A-bomb disease certification have been rejected in succession. Junko Tabe, 84, one of the plaintiffs in the case and a resident of Minami Ward, Hiroshima, said, “Winning the case involving A-bomb disease certification will pave the way for getting the Japanese government to squarely face the damage done in Fukushima.”
The direct damage wrought by radioactivity is not the only concern that requires legal support. Another task for lawyers involves calling on the Dispute Settlement Center for Nuclear Damage Compensation, administered by the Japanese government, to serve as a mediator between those affected by the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, so that these people can seek a settlement. In the case of one man, 26, who evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture to the city of Hiroshima, the lawyers from Hiroshima helped him reach a settlement in mid-January.
This was the first settlement produced through the support of the Hiroshima lawyers. The result, however, was unsatisfactory. While the man had demanded about 1.15 million yen in damages, he was awarded 99,740 yen, which included moving costs, transportation costs for the evacuation, and the expense of a radiological exam. Because he was living in a location about 40 kilometers from the nuclear plant, his move was considered a “voluntary evacuation.”
Maiko Kudo, 30, the lawyer who represented the man, pointed out, “A broader range of claims for damages should be accepted, including the psychological distress suffered by voluntary evacuees.”
On March 11, the second anniversary of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake, those who were exposed to the nuclear accident and fled from Fukushima Prefecture to the Kanto region will file a class action lawsuit against the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, seeking compensation for damages. A similar lawsuit may also be filed in Hiroshima.
Kunio Sato, 32, the coordinator of the group of Hiroshima lawyers, said, “Hiroshima, which has broadened the framework for providing relief to A-bomb survivors, now has a role to play.” At the Convention on Protection of Human Rights of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, which is scheduled to take place in Hiroshima this October, the main theme will be “relief measures,” from the perspective of the A-bombed city, concerning the damage caused by the nuclear power plant in Fukushima.
Keywords
Class action lawsuits over A-bomb disease certification
Since 2003, 306 people have filed lawsuits at 17 district courts, including the Hiroshima District Court, arguing that the Japanese government’s decisions to reject applications for A-bomb disease certification made in line with the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law are unfair. The district courts have issued a series of rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, among them the 2006 ruling by the Hiroshima District Court which reversed the government’s decision to reject all applications filed by Hiroshima plaintiffs. In response, the Japanese government relaxed the A-bomb disease criteria significantly, in 2008, so that applicants can receive immediate certification as long as they meet certain provisions, such as having been exposed to the A-bomb’s radiation within a radius of 3.5 kilometers from the hypocenter.
(Originally published on March 5, 2013)
by Gosuke Nagahisa, Staff Writer
“In the judicial field, too, the knowledge that has accumulated in the A-bombed city of Hiroshima can surely be used when it comes to cases involving Fukushima,” stressed Takashi Hashimoto, 42, a lawyer. In February, Mr. Hashimoto joined a group of 18 Hiroshima-based lawyers who belong to the Hiroshima Bar Association and support claims for compensation for damages caused by the nuclear power station in Fukushima.
Mr. Hashimoto also serves as one of the representatives of plaintiffs now waging a legal battle at the Hiroshima District Court, in which 26 A-bomb survivors are seeking certification for A-bomb-related diseases.
“Radioactivity doesn’t simply do harm in a concentric fashion,” Mr. Hashimoto said. “In the case of internal exposure to radiation, the harm to health can appear several decades later.” With his experience representing A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima, he now ponders how legal assistance for Fukushima plaintiffs should be pursued.
In Hiroshima, many lawyers have stood by A-bomb survivors to provide legal support. For instance, working with lawyers of other areas, they won a series of class action lawsuits involving the certification of A-bomb diseases, which led to considerable relaxing, in April 2008, of the criteria used for this certification process.
Still, legal battles over the issue of A-bomb disease certification have continued. Even after the criteria for certification was eased, applications by survivors for A-bomb disease certification have been rejected in succession. Junko Tabe, 84, one of the plaintiffs in the case and a resident of Minami Ward, Hiroshima, said, “Winning the case involving A-bomb disease certification will pave the way for getting the Japanese government to squarely face the damage done in Fukushima.”
The direct damage wrought by radioactivity is not the only concern that requires legal support. Another task for lawyers involves calling on the Dispute Settlement Center for Nuclear Damage Compensation, administered by the Japanese government, to serve as a mediator between those affected by the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, so that these people can seek a settlement. In the case of one man, 26, who evacuated from Fukushima Prefecture to the city of Hiroshima, the lawyers from Hiroshima helped him reach a settlement in mid-January.
This was the first settlement produced through the support of the Hiroshima lawyers. The result, however, was unsatisfactory. While the man had demanded about 1.15 million yen in damages, he was awarded 99,740 yen, which included moving costs, transportation costs for the evacuation, and the expense of a radiological exam. Because he was living in a location about 40 kilometers from the nuclear plant, his move was considered a “voluntary evacuation.”
Maiko Kudo, 30, the lawyer who represented the man, pointed out, “A broader range of claims for damages should be accepted, including the psychological distress suffered by voluntary evacuees.”
On March 11, the second anniversary of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake, those who were exposed to the nuclear accident and fled from Fukushima Prefecture to the Kanto region will file a class action lawsuit against the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company, seeking compensation for damages. A similar lawsuit may also be filed in Hiroshima.
Kunio Sato, 32, the coordinator of the group of Hiroshima lawyers, said, “Hiroshima, which has broadened the framework for providing relief to A-bomb survivors, now has a role to play.” At the Convention on Protection of Human Rights of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, which is scheduled to take place in Hiroshima this October, the main theme will be “relief measures,” from the perspective of the A-bombed city, concerning the damage caused by the nuclear power plant in Fukushima.
Keywords
Class action lawsuits over A-bomb disease certification
Since 2003, 306 people have filed lawsuits at 17 district courts, including the Hiroshima District Court, arguing that the Japanese government’s decisions to reject applications for A-bomb disease certification made in line with the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law are unfair. The district courts have issued a series of rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, among them the 2006 ruling by the Hiroshima District Court which reversed the government’s decision to reject all applications filed by Hiroshima plaintiffs. In response, the Japanese government relaxed the A-bomb disease criteria significantly, in 2008, so that applicants can receive immediate certification as long as they meet certain provisions, such as having been exposed to the A-bomb’s radiation within a radius of 3.5 kilometers from the hypocenter.
(Originally published on March 5, 2013)
