• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2022

There were also many medical-related rulings in 2021, among which the rulings reviewed in this paper are as follows. The first relates to a case in which the medical record, which is the primary judgment data regarding the presence or absence of medical negligence, has been modified. The court judged whether there was negligence on the basis of the first written medical record without considering the contents of the medical record that was later modified. Next, the ruling on the case of asking for liability for damages for prescription of anti-obesity drugs recognized negligence related to prescription, but denied liability for property damage by denying a causal relationship, and recognized only alimony for violation of the duty of explanation. The a full-bench ruling on the scope of subrogation of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which subrogates the claims for compensation for medical expenses against the perpetrator of the patient, changed the existing precedent that had taken the 'deduction method after offsetting negligence' and judged it as 'the method of offsetting negligence after deduction'. In addition, in the ruling on whether or not there was negligence, the court was not bound by the medical record appraisal result. Lastly, in relation to the National Health Insurance Service's disposition of reimbursement for medical care benefit costs, we reviewed the ruling that discretion should be exercised even when a non-medical person makes a refund to a medical institution opened by a non-medical person. And we also reviewed the ruling that the scope of reimbursement for medical institutions jointly using facilities and manpower specifically should be determined.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.91-123
• /
• 2012

Doctors and patients for the purpose of healing and treatment of disease through the contract will make a relationship. Doctors perform the medical practice for the state and illness of patient. Given that the patient did not cooperate in the doctor's medical practice, it is difficult to achieve the goal of disease healing. If the patient don't cooperate the medical care, and it is linked with a doctor's medical malpractice, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation is considered with negligence on the part of patients. However, this negligence should be limited to obvious cases that the patient's behavior is unreasonable although the doctor provides medical information to patients and induced the patient's response. Also, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation must result in adjusting the indemnification via a setoff of fault except the cases having causal relationship between doctor's fault and malpractice.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.83-107
• /
• 2019

In order to resolve a dispute over a medical accident, the court is in the process of appraising the medical records for medical professionals to report their medical expertise or judgments using that knowledge. The consequences of expert opinion about a medical accident are only one of the methods of evidence as a reference. Therefore, in principle, the court should not be bound to the results, but the court, which is not a medical expert, can not completely rule out medical expert opinion as to whether there is medical malpractice and causality. Therefore, it can not be denied that the proportion of expert opinion of medical records in the dispute about medical accidents is high and it has an important influence on the judgement of the court. In this paper, we examine the significance and function of expert opinion of the medical accident, examine the appraising procedure of the medical records in the court and the appraising procedure of the medical accidents of the Korean medical dispute mediation arbitrator do. In addition, I would like to examine what kind of attitude is being taken in response to expert opinion of medical records in Korea to court, to examine the implications of the case of Japan as a foreign system, and to suggest improvement points in the expert opinion procedure of medical record filing in Korea. In particular, I would like to suggest improvements on issues such as the fairness of the expert opinion of medical records and the delays in litigation due to delays in the process of expert opinion.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.465-485
• /
• 2013

Mit dem Patientenrechtegesetz, das im $Fr{\ddot{u}}jahr$ 2013 in Kraft treten soll, $f{\ddot{u}}rt$ der Gesetzgeber eine jahrzehntelange Diskussion um die Rechte von Patientinnen und Patienten zu einem guten Ende. Demnach geht es darum, Transparenz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ die bereits heute bestehenden, umfangreichen Rechte der Patientinnen und Patienten herzustellen, die $tats{\ddot{a}}chliche$ Durchsetzung dieser Rechte zu verbessern, zugleich Patientinnen und Patienten im Sinne einer verbesserten Gesundheitsversorgung zu $sch{\ddot{u}}tzen$ und insbesondere im Fall eines Behandlungsfehlers $st{\ddot{a}}rker$ zu $unterst{\ddot{u}}tzen$. In Verfolgung dieser Zwecke $schl{\ddot{a}}gt$ die Bundesregierung ein Artikelgesetz vor, dessen wesentliche Teile das BGB und das Recht der sozialen Krankenversicherung betreffen. In das BGB soll ein neuer Abschnitt ${\ddot{u}}ber$ den "Behandlungsvertrag" $eingef{\ddot{u}}gt$ werden. Als Standort ist der ${\ddot{U}}bergang$ vom Dienstin das Werkvertragsrecht vorgesehen, der um die neu zu schaffenden Vorschriften der ${\S}{\S}$ 630 a bis 630 h BGB erweitert wird. Die acht Paragrafen enthalten im Kern eine Kodifikation der von der Rechtsprechung entwickelten $Grunds{\ddot{a}}tze$ zur Arzthaftung. Der Beitrag stellt die bisherige politische Diskussion des Patientenrechtegesetzes vor (II). Im Anschluss daran wird die einzige wesentliche Neuerung des Gesetzes $n{\ddot{a}}her$ untersucht und werden Regelungsziel und Grundkonzept der Kodifikation einer $Pr{\ddot{u}}fung$ unterzogen (III). $Schlie{\ss}lich$ werden einen politischen Ausblick auf die neuen Herausforderungen und die Bewertung der $gegenw{\ddot{a}}rtigen$ Lage und der erwarteten Entwicklung gezogen (IV).

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.16 no.11
• /
• pp.72-82
• /
• 2016

Various studies have been done in medical service area but they have just focused on the examination of the relationships between cause and effect variables. This study, thus, empirically analyzed qualitative data regarding medical service problems using word cloud technique. The major results of the paper are as follows. The data reveal ten sources in medical service - forced treatment, excess inspection, misdiagnosis, carelessness, inexperienced service, waiting for emergency, reservation problem, unkindness, process problem, and inconvenience. Major words in the category of irrecoverable service failure are misdiagnosis, careless treatment, and inexperienced service whereas those in recoverable service failure are unkind attitude and negative experience in reservation system. Those who experienced a medical service problem are usually engaged in a public act and they make public protests and legal action against very severe problems. The conclusion of this study also suggests a summary, implication, and agenda of the research.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.57-81
• /
• 2016

It can determine the outcome of the lawsuit whether or not there is a causality between the medical malpractice of a physician and the patient's injury when the patient is filing a lawsuit against the physician in order to pursue civil liability for a medical accident. In medical malpractice lawsuits, it is not easy to judge causality between different civil cases because of the special nature of medical care. Also, information such as medical records is concentrated on doctors and the medical knowledge of the patient is relatively insufficient compared with the doctor. Therefore, it is recognized through medical malpractice lawsuits that the burden of proof of the causality burdened by the plaintiff patient is relaxed. In this paper, I examine the legal theory on how to recognize causality in medical civil liability and then concern the attitude of the case in Korea, which is divided into the types of the causality - such as the case of general medical practice, explanation duty, no causality with medical malpractice.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.83-139
• /
• 2019

Recognition of liability for damages due to medical malpractice has been developed largely on the basis of two paths. First is the case where there is an error in a physician's medical practice and this infringes upon the legal interests of life and body, and the compensation for monetary and non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement on life and body becomes an issue. Second is the case where there is a breach of a physician's duty of explanation that results in a infringement on the patient's right of autonomous decision, and the compensation for non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement becomes an issue. However, even if there is a medical error, since it is difficult to prove the causation between the medical error of a physician and the infringement upon legal interests, the physician's responsibility for damage compensation is denied in some cases. Consider, for example, a case where a patient is already in the final stage of cancer and has a very low possibility of a complete recovery even if proper treatment is received from the physician. Here, it is not appropriate to refuse recognition of any damage compensation based on the reason that the possibility of the patient dying is very high even in the absence of a medical error. This is so because, at minimum, non-monetary damage such as psychological suffering is incurred due to the physician's medical error. In such a case, our courts recognize on an exceptional basis consolation money compensation for losing the chance to receive proper treatment. However, since the theoretical system has not been established in minutiae, what comes under the benefit and protection of the law is not clearly explicated. The recent discourse on compensating for damages incurred by patients, even when the causation between the physician's medical error and infringement upon the legal interests of life and body is denied, by establishing a new legal interest is based on the "legal principle of loss of opportunity for treatment." On what should be the substance of the new legal interest, treatment possibility argument, expectation infringement argument, considerable degree of survival possibility infringement argument and loss of opportunity for treatment argument are being put forth. It is reasonable to see the substance of this protected legal interest as "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" according to the loss of opportunity for treatment argument. The above benefit to the patient is a value inherent to human dignity that should not be infringed upon or obstructed by anyone, and at the same time, it is a basic desire regarding life and a benefit worthy of protection by law. In this regard, "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" can be made concrete as one of the general personal rights related to psychological legal interest.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.