HEALTH LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE OF THE ABSENCE OF A VISUM ET REPERTUM IN THE PROTECTION OF WORKPLACE ACCIDENT INSURANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERPRETATION OF THE APPEAL MECHANISM AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PROVING VIOLENCE

Abstract

This research is motivated by the legal problems in the disbursement of Work Accident Insurance (JKK) claims in cases of death without a body (missing body), as experienced by maritime workers, the late Anton and Kunedi. The absence of a body caused the doctor to refuse to issue a Visum et Repertum according to the Medical Code of Ethics, which resulted in the rejection of the administrative claim by BPJS Ketenagakerjaan because it was deemed not to meet the formal requirements. The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal consequences of the absence of a visum from a health law perspective and to examine the legal force of the appeal mechanism of Article 11A of the Minister of Manpower Regulation Number 1 of 2025 as an alternative solution for proof. The research method used is normative juridical with a statute approach and a case approach. The results of the study indicate that the doctor's refusal to issue a visum is medically valid (medical impossibility), but creates legal uncertainty for the rights of heirs. The appeal mechanism of Article 11A of Permenaker 1/2025 provides a legal breakthrough in which the Manpower Inspector's Determination Note can function as a substitute evidence that has perfect evidentiary power (volledig bewijskracht) to replace the visa, thus guaranteeing dignified justice for social security participants.