精神疾病是否屬於職業災害補償之範圍，於我國向有爭議。勞委會近年來雖正式將精神疾病納入職災勞保給付的範圍，然實際上獲得給付的案例十分有限，且雇主對於因工作壓力引起精神疾病之勞工是否應負勞基法上的職災補償責任或民法上的損害賠償責任仍有疑義。本文藉著評釋我國關於雇主職災補償責任及民事賠償責任中，第一個言及判斷精神疾病是否屬於勞保條例上職業災害之「工作相關心理壓力事件引起精神疾病認定參考指引」的臺灣板橋地方法院一○○年度勞訴字第一號判決，來檢討我國職業災害救濟制度之問題點，特別是精神疾病與雇主之職業災害補償責任、民事賠償責任，以及職災勞保給付認定間複雜的關係，並試圖透過日本法之介紹與探討，進一步為比較法的分析。 Whether mental diseases are compensable is an important issue in the workers’ compensation system in Taiwan. According to the Labor Insurance Act, work-related mental diseases shall be considered as occupational diseases. However, coverage for mental diseases is usually denied; therefore, the validity of the standard, the guideline of identifying work-related stress-induced mental diseases, is doubted. Besides, whether employers should pay compensation according to the Labor Standards Law, whether employees have the right to recover damages according to Civil Law, and the relationships among the Labor Insurance Act, the Labor Standards Law and Civil Law are also controversial issues. This thesis not only gives comments on the (100) Lao-Su No.1 Decision Rendered by the Taiwan Banciao District Court, in which the guideline of identifying work-related stress-induced mental diseases is first mentioned, but also discusses the issues above and undertakes a comparative study on Japan.