於過勞職災的事件中，如何認定勞工之腦血管或心臟血管疾病係因執行職務過勞所引起，關鍵即在於判斷其是否有「超時工作」，即過勞的情形。然不適用勞基法之勞工，因其不受勞基法上法定工時之限制，因此其是否超時工作，往往成為重要的爭點。本論文以住院醫師為例，探討此時是否得與其他勞工依相同之基準，為過勞與否之認定。此外，無論是否適用勞基法，於當事人間具有僱傭關係時，僱用人對於受僱人，應負民法第483條之1的保護照顧義務。因此，本文認為，即使住院醫師並無勞基法之適用，醫院仍應針對會損及受僱醫師身心健康之過勞，為必要之預防。最高法院106年度台上字第15號民事判決為住院醫師過勞職災救濟最初的最高法院判決，具有指標性意義。然其認為不應以勞基法上工時之規定檢視住院醫師合理的工時時數之見解，是否適切，有加以評釋之必要。

Due to the regulations of working hour set by the Labor Standards Act do not apply to doctors, it is controversial to how to decide if the employed doctors worked overtime in cases of Occupational Accidents caused by overwork. However, regardless of whether the Labor Standards Act applies, under Civil Code§483-1, employers have the duty of care for safety and health to their employees based on the employment contracts. Therefore, even though the Labor Standards Act does not apply, the hospitals shall nonetheless take necessary means to prevent the doctors from suffering physical and mental harm caused by overwork. The (106) Tai-Shang No.15 Decision Rendered by the Supreme Court is the leading case on this matter, for it is the first decision regarding the remedy for resident physicians' occupational accidents delivered by the Supreme Court. However, it misunderstood the meaning of the minimum standards provided by the Labor Standards Act and ignored the content of the duty of care for safety and health, for it stated that the determination of employed doctors' working hours shall consider other factors instead of the hours set by the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the comments on this decision are necessary.