SINGAPORE — A 62-year-old driver whose heart condition was so poor that a doctor said “even a sneeze could cause his heart to collapse” died after a heart attack at work on 19 July 2017, a court heard.

The manpower ministry later assessed that Abu Samad Omar’s employer, waste disposal firm Colex Environmental, was to pay $181,421.73 in compensation to his wife, two daughters and a son.

But the Assistant Commissioner for Labour decided that Abu Samad’s death was caused by his own medical condition - severe coronary heart disease - and did not arise out of his employment. Hence, his family were not entitled to a payout by Colex and its insurer, NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative.

The family appealed against the decision, and on Wednesday (29 May), two years after the accident, High Court judge Chan Seng Onn ordered that the sum be paid out to the claimants.

Heart attack after breakfast

On 19 July 2017, Abu Samad went to work at about 7.30am. He had breakfast with three other colleagues at about 8am.

At about 9am, the three colleagues went to a shed to unscrew the wheels from four green refuse bins which had been upturned. The men went to work on one bin each.

At about 9.30am, Abu Samad, who worked as a driver, offered to help his colleagues on the remaining bin. While he was helping out, he also laughed and joked with his colleagues, who had their backs turned against him.

Suddenly, Abu Samad stopped talking. Two colleagues turned around to see him collapsing and went to his aid.

Abu Samad was sent to hospital where he was pronounced dead. His cause of death was certified as ischaemic heart disease.

The manpower ministry asked Colex to compensate its employee’s family on 12 October 2017.

Two weeks later, Colex’s insurers objected to a payout as it was of the view that Abu Samad’s death was due to his own medical condition and not from his employment. A hearing was then held before an Assistant Commissioner for Labour, who agreed that the insurer was not liable for a payout.

Burden on employer to show contrary evidence

In his grounds of decision published on Thursday (30 May), Justice Chan Seng Onn found that the Assistant Commissioner had wrongly placed the burden of proof for an accident at work on the claimants rather than the employer.

The Work Injury Compensation Act states that, “an accident arising in the course of an employee’s employment shall be deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have arisen out of that employment.”

Furthermore, Justice Chan said the Assistant Commissioner had appeared to completely ignore the evidence of Abu Samad’s three colleagues who had seen him working before he collapsed.

The judge analysed what constitutes an accident and quoted from earlier rulings on an employer’s liability to pay compensation.

An accident “would include an internal medical condition that caused an unexpected injury while the worker was carrying out his work,” the judge said, adding that even “rupturing an aneurism when tightening a nut with a spanner may be regarded as an accident”.

And an accident can be phrased as an unexpected mishap that happens by chance and is unintentional in nature.

Death arose in course of work

Abu Samad’s death clearly arose in the course of his employment as it occured at his workplace during the time that he was scheduled to work, said the judge.

Hence, due to the presumption clause under the Work Injury Compensation Act, it is presumed that Abu Samad’s heart attack arose out of his employment.

And his employer did not rebut the presumption; there was insufficient evidence to show that Abu Samad’s heart condition was the sole cause of his death.

Even if his heart attack happened while he was resting, it would have been insufficient to rebut the presumption clause, said Justice Chan.

Quoting from an earlier ruling, the judge said, “It also does not matter that the workman had a pre-existing medical condition such that the injury could have happened at any time, even in his sleep. What is material is that something in fact transpired in the course of his work which made the injury occur when it did.”

Physical exertion triggered heart attack

The judge also said he was prepared to go further, finding that on the balance of probabilities, even though physical exertion was not the sole cause of Abu Samad’s heart attack, it had trigged the heart attack.