• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.3-48
• /
• 2021

Among the major rulings handed down in 2020, there were cases involving anaphylaxis, which is timely as a side effect of coronavirus and flu vaccine. And as a rare case, a ruling was handed down that if medical treatment was done so unfaithfully beyond the limit of patience of ordinary people, it can be an independent illegal act and a cause of compensation for emotional distress. Also, there was a ruling in the appellate court that evaluated disability rate applying the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences Guides for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, not McBride system. And the supreme court made it clear that telemedicine is illegitimate. In relation to duty of explanation, it is in the process of adding detail criterion on the firm principles in the individual cases. In regard of medical records, there was a case that even when a medical record is strongly suspected to be tampered with, it is not considered to be an obstruction of proof. There were cases that resulted in different conclusion between the court of first instance and the appellate court rulings. Lastly, in the face of a growing number of cases in which doctors are sentenced to prison for malpractice, we reviewed a ruling that sentenced a doctor to prison.