• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.173-214
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance should be distinguished from other medical treatment agreements which are viewed as a consummation of the autonomous free will between doctor and patient. Namely, the Supreme Court views medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance to be bound by the National Health Insurance Law with the intent to promote the applicability and comprehensiveness of the national health insurance scheme. Yet, issues of voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are triggered not only by the mistakes or moral hazard of medical care institutions but also by systemic limitations of national health insurance coverage criteria. Thus, there is a need for legislative measures that allow certain medical treatments to be included or reflected in the national health insurance coverage system so that patients may receive prompt and flexible medical treatments. To reflect such concerns, the Supreme Court made an exception for voluntary non-reimbursable treatments and developed a strict test to be applied in such cases in Supreme Court Judgment 2010 Doo 27639, 27646 (ruled on June 8, 2012 by the Grand Bench). Such judgment, however, is not a fundamental overturn of the Supreme Court's prior rulings that voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are not allowed under the law. It is only a slight revision of its previous stance for cases in which there is a lack of legislative measures to make coverage of a new yet valid medical treatment possible under the current national health insurance coverage system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2017

There are three types of benefits in the National Health Insurance Act of Korea. Those are the treatment benefit, statutory uninsured medical benefits and arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. Recently the Korea Supreme Court changed its past legal theory and permitted the arbitrary uninsured medical benefits under the strictly exceptional conditions. According to the Supreme Court's decision, the existence of procedural difficulty, the medical necessity and the patient's consent are necessarily required in order to allow the legal exceptions in arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. Among the three requirements, the doctor's explanation and the patient's fully informed consent are the most important essentials in this legal conflict. The requirement concerning the doctor's explanation and the patient's consent roles like a hole in the ice as a breathing hole in the arbitrary uninsured medical benefits. The most cases dismissed after Supreme Court Decision 2010DU27639, 27646 Decided June 18, 2012. were due to the defect of three requirements.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.297-341
• /
• 2017

We searched out court rulings on medical affairs through court library search sites and specialized articles on medically relevant judgments sentenced in 2016. And we selected and analyzed the judgements of the court we considered important as follows. In relation to the medical civil judgements, (1) In the case of applying surgery for female infertility during cesarean section operation but it has not been done, we expressed the regret for the lack of judgment in the process of entering the medical contract, introducing the rights infringed and the scope of compensation, (2) We pointed out that the ruling on the medical malpractice estimation goes out of limit of negligence estimation doctrine, and that the court asked very high degree duty of the traditional Korean medicine doctors to cooperate with Western medicine doctors. (3) In the case of admitting hospital's 100% responsibility, we pointed out the court overlooked the uncertainty and good intention of the medical practice. (4) Additionally, We introduced the cases admitted the hospital's responsibility in the accident related to the psychiatric patients in closed ward. Relating to a medical criminal ruling, we analyzed the supreme court decision about whether the dentist's Botox injection on the patient's face is a medical practice within the scope of the license from the viewpoint whether it is within the possible range of the word. And, concerning decisions on healthcare administration, (1) we analyzed the case about when medical personnel operate multiple medical institutions, whether it is possible to get back medical care costs under the National Health Insurance Law, (2) We commented on the ruling regarding explanation obligation in terms of object, degree, subject of explanation as a prerequisite for permissible arbitrary uninsured benefits. Finally, we reviewed the decision of the Constitutional Court about the Article 24 of the Mental Health Law, which it had allowed for a mental patient to be hospitalized forcibly by the consent of two guardians and a diagnosis of a psychiatrist. Also we indicated the problems of the revised Mental Health Law.