The Utsunomiya Hospital Incident

In March 1984, the lynching of a patient by paramedics at Utsunomiya Hospital was first covered in the news media. The report was followed by a series of medical malpractice cases at the hospital, including physical abuse of patients by the director of the hospital and treatment by non-qualified personnel.

Problems with the Mental Health Act, which led to such "outlaw" conditions in mental hospitals came to be addressed at the United Nations. The Act was finally revised in 1987 into the Mental Health Law.

On September 30, 1996, the Tokyo High Court delivered its decision on the Utsunomiya Hospital Case, which had been supported by the JCLU. The High Court judgement was a major victory for the plaintiffs because it upheld: 1) responsibility of the government, which had been denied by the Tokyo District Court; 2) one plaintiff's claim, which was rejected by the District Court on account of statutory limitations, and; 3) the amount of compensation claimed by the plaintiffs, which almost doubled the sum decided by the District Court.

The first trial partially acknowledged the claims of all plaintiffs except one. All plaintiffs appealed to the High Court demanding an increase in the amount of compensation.

The District Court rejected the claim of one plaintiff on account of statutory limitations. This former patient was told by the hospital that he could not be discharged unless he worked at the hospital-related company. He escaped from the company in 1974. The District Court held that this plaintiff had been able to file a suit after the escape and that his filing in 1985 exceeded the period of filing.

The High Court contradicted the District Court and rejected the application of statutory limitations. It reasoned that this plaintiff could bring a suit only after the incidents at Utsunomiya Hospital were uncovered by the media -- once he was convinced of social awareness of the hospital's problems -- because he feared that he might end up re-admitted to the hospital should he claim damages to the hospital on his own. The High Court stated that the count of statutory limitations begins when a filing is made possible and thus certified the start of statutory limitations of this plaintiff on the day the news report was released in 1984.

As for the other plaintiffs, the High Court upheld their claims and almost doubled the amount of compensation. In addition, it acknowledged the responsibility of the government by ruling that some functions at the hospital could be regarded as having been assigned by the central government. The responsibility of the government had been dismissed by the District Court.

In substance, the case was a great victory for the plaintiffs. It was a long-awaited victory for the JCLU, as well, since the JCLU's support cases in recent years have hardly been as successful.

The High Court, however, rejected all claims based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On this specific point, there is a need to make further effort to convince judges of human rights, not only through domestic laws but also in light of international instruments.

Since neither party has attempted to appeal, legal settlement has finally been made on the case. Considering, however, that the suit was filed eleven years ago and that the illegal detention has taken place even more than twenty years ago, it is a settlement that came overly late.

Though this case has come to an end, constant vigilance should continue. Even after the revision of the law, similar -- albeit less blatant -- malpractice at mental hospitals is said to exist today.