• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.36 no.7 s.350
• /
• pp.503-512
• /
• 1998

건강과 의료에 관심이 높아지면서 의료수요는 날로 증가하게 되었고 이에 따르는 의료분쟁 또한 증가하는 추세이다. 본의 아니게 발생한 의료사고는 의료분쟁으로 발전하게 되는데 과실과 악결과 그리고 이에 따르는 인과관계와 책임여부를 따지게 된다. 이를 규명하기 위해서는 의료인은 주의의무와 설명의무를 잘 수행했는지와 환자 또한 의무를 잘 수행했는지를 평가하게 된다. 일단 의료분쟁이 생기지 않도록 최선의 진료와 환자와의 대화가 요구되며 분쟁시 화해, 조정, 소송 등으로 해결하며 이 과정 각각에서의 준비와 대책을 세워야 할 것이다. 현재의 상황에서 언제 어디서 일어날지 모르는 의료분쟁을 방지하려면 진료기술의 숙련도를 높이고 발전하는 새로운 의학 정보를 얻는데 게으르지 말아야하며 특히 환자를 대하는데 진단, 치료과정, 치료의 후유증, 위험성에 관한 자세한 설명을 통하여 환자 스스로 결정할 수 있는 의료환경이 요구되며 가장 기본적인 의료기록부 작성에 관심을 가져야 할것이다.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.48 no.8
• /
• pp.813-819
• /
• 2005

Purpose : Medicolegal problems start when the patient asserts the mistake of doctor and doctor does not accept it. The purpose of this study is to assess the actual condition of medicolegal problems and to provide solutions of medicolegal problems in the pediatric field. Methods : There is not official statistical data about medicolegal problems in our country. We gathered data of legal insurance program of Korean Medical Association(KMA) and court cases and other fragmentary data. Results : Between 1981 and 1995, of total 2,338 cases reported to legal problem insurance program of KMA, most common ones were 748 cases of obstetrics and gynecology. Pediatric case was ranked at the 5th, 74 cases(3.1%). According to analysis of 41 medicolegal cases' after 1990, maltreatment of patient had the highest incidence of 14 cases, injection and medication were related to 12 cases, misdiagnosis was 9 cases, patient management were related to 4 cases, and others were 2 cases. The trial result of the medicolegal cases was that 31 cases were compensated, and 8 cases were defeated, and 2 cases were still in the process. Conclusion : The aspect of medical legal problem has the tendency of radicalism and systematization. This brings an economic destitution in the patient and gives damage to a doctor. In order to reduce medicolegal problem, doctor should offer a duty of explanation and efforts to his best to satisfy patient and endeavor to make an intimate doctor-patient relationship.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.39-65
• /
• 2022

There are two aspects of clinical practice guidelines that act as non-legal control before medical practice and as legal control standards after medical practice. The essential purpose of clinical practice guidelines is the former, but the latter action cannot be excluded. The clinical practice guidelines are a means of linking law and medical care. The negative perception of clinical practice guidelines that medical professionals' autonomy can be violated by the enactment of clinical practice guidelines is an excessive negative evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Rather, judicial judgment based on clinical practice guidelines plays a role in respecting the autonomy of medical professionals. In other words, the clinical practice guidelines suppress legal regulations on medical care as much as possible and are based on doctors' professional ethics and self-discipline, and patient awareness and cooperation. In order to establish an ideal relationship of cooperation between doctors and patients, 'medical ethics' must be incorporated as a legal means. Clinical practice guidelines are the most appropriate means for incorporating such medical ethics into legal procedures. The lawyer solves the case with a legal syllogism that establishes a norm and applies facts to it to conclude. For the resolution of medical disputes, Clinical practice guidelines are used to establish norms that doctors should perform for specific diseases, and conclusions are drawn by applying the established norms to specific medical practices. When it is not easy to apply the established norms to specific medical practices, medical judgments by experts, such as emotions, expert testimony, and explanations by expert members, are used. As such, the Law respects the autonomy of medical care even in the establishment of norms and the application of norms. In particular, Clinical practice guidelines prepared independently by the medical community are referred to in establishing norms, which are the prerequisites for legal syllogism. This shows that doctors participate in the formation of precedents and contribute to the formation of norms. The use of clinical practice guidelines in trials is respect and consideration for the autonomy of medical care. Although there may be an aspect in which the autonomy of individual doctors is limited by clinical practice guidelines, it should be considered that the autonomy of doctors as a group is respected. In this way, the clinical practice guidelines play a role in protecting the autonomy of the "medical" group from the logic of the "law."

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

Due to defendant's wrongful act by implant surgery, plaintiff has been suffered serious damages to his face and teeth, and pain caused by establishing implanted teeth. Jeonju Appellate Court sentenced to pay future medical expenses and alimony to the plaintiff in compensation for breach of duty or torts. The ruling is designed to relieve the burden of proof because it is extremely difficult for non-experts to determine whether dentists violated their 'duty of care' or whether there was a causal relationship between damages to medial treatment. It was judged that if symptoms that contributed to the patient's significant outcome occurred during or after surgery, such symptoms could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence if indirect facts were proven to be other than medical negligence. Originally, the shifting of burden of proof in Germany, has already been developed in medical malpractice case since 1940s. In order to guarantee the patients' right, §630h German Civil Code (BGB) - presumption of negligence in the realization of controllable risk- has been also legislated. BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) has been interested in ensuring that the principle of equality between patients and doctors. So, in this study, we wanted to refer to German precedent cases to analyzing Korean medical malpractice lawsuit. In particular, the decision could be significant in that it approaches closer to allows the shifting burden of proof in drastically growing dental malpractice cases. This is clearly confirmed in the judgment of the dentist's "fault" that "if indirect facts about the symptom or occurrence are proven to be cause other than medical negligence, such symptoms can be presumed to be due to medical negligence."

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2016

$F{\ddot{u}}r$ den Schadensersatzhaftung des Arztes, sog. die Arzthaftung, ist es vornehmlich vorauszusetzen: die $Sch{\ddot{a}}digungsbehandlung$ des Arztes, die Rechtswidrigkeit und das Verschulden. Zur Problematik der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ in der Stufe des Verschuldens handelt sich es in dieser Beitrag um die Kritisierung der Rechtsprechung. $F{\ddot{u}}r$ die Entscheidung des Verschulden im medizinischen Fehler kommt es darauf an, ob die Sorgfaltspflicht des Arztes verletzt wird. $Daf{\ddot{u}}r$ wird der medizinische Standard rekurriert, den die Rechtsprechung nicht aus materieller, sondern aus normativer Sicht begreift. Erstaunlich $un{\ddot{u}}bereinstimmend$ mit deren Leitsatz wird der medizinische Standard als $Ma{\ss}stab$ der Sorgfaltspflicht materiell - zutreffend nur im Ergebnis - behandelt. Die Sorgfaltspflicht in der Medizin bedeutet nicht die natur-wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sondern eine "Best-$M{\ddot{u}}ssen$" Pflicht. Demnach ist der Standpunkt der Rechtsprechung, wonach den med. Standard normativ bewertet und die Sorgfaltspflicht darduch wieder normativ entscheidet, nicht anders als eine $w{\ddot{o}}rtliche$ Wiederholung. Die Arzthaftung in der Rechtsprechung ist aufgrund mit der Verneinung von der Sorgfaltspflichtverletzung nicht angenommen, welche in der Tat jedoch aus verschiedenen $Gr{\ddot{u}}nden$, wie die Rechtswidrigkeit, die $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ oder $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}t$, nicht angenommen. Der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeitsbeweis$ in der Rechtsprechung entwickelt sich mit dem Beweis nach objektivem $Ma{\ss}stab$, der Vermutung nach Anschein-Beweis und der $Beschr{\ddot{a}}nkung$ mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit. Bei Letzterem $geh{\ddot{o}}rt$ es $schlie{\ss}lich$ zum medizinischen Bereich. Ein Eintritt in den fachliche Bereich im Rahmen der Beweislast stellt der Beweiserleichterung $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Aus diesem Hintergrund ist ${\S}630$ h Abs. 5 BGB bemerkenswert, wonach das Vorliegen eines groben Behandlungsfehler $regelm{\ddot{a}}{\ss}ig$ zur Vermutung von der $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}tszusammenhang$ $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$. Dieser Paragraph ist inhaltlich als Beweislastumkehr angesehen. Damit ist es von Nutzen im Fall des groben Fehler, der beim - elementaren - kunstgerechten Verhalten nicht entstanden $h{\ddot{a}}tte$, wie $Hygienem{\ddot{a}}ngel$, ${\ddot{U}}berdosierung$ des Narkotikum.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.159-193
• /
• 2015

Owing to causes such as population aging, increased use of various medical devices, long-term hospitalization of various patients with reduced immune function such as cancer, diabetes, and organ transplant patients, and the growing size of hospitals, hospital infections are continuing to increase. As seen in the MERS crisis of 2015, hospital infections have become a social and national problem. In order to prevent damage due to such hospital infections, it is necessary to first strictly implement measures to prevent hospital infections, while, on the other hand, providing proper relief of damage suffered due to hospital infections. However, the mainstream attitude of judicial precedents relating to hospital infection cases has been judged to in fact shift responsibility over damages due to hospital infections on the patient. In light of the philosophy of the damage compensation system, whose guiding principle if the fair and proper apportionment of damages, there is a need to seek means of drastically relaxing the burden of proof on the patient's side relative to conventional legal principles for relaxing the burden of proof, or the theory of de facto estimation. In relation to such need, the German civil code (Burgerliches Gesetzbuch), which defines contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, and has presumption of negligence provisions stipulating that, in cases such as hospital infections which were completely under the control of the medical care providers, if risks in general medical treatment have been realized which cause violations of the life, body, or health of patients, error on the part of the person providing medical care is presumed, was examined. Contracts of medical treatment are entered into very frequently and broadly in the everyday lives of the general public, with various disputes owing thereto arising. Therefore, it is necessary to, by defining contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, regulate the content of said contracts, as well as the proof of burden when disputes arise. If stipulations in the civil code are premature as of yet, an option may be to regulate through a special act, as is the case with France. In the case of hospital infection cases, it is thought that 'legal presumption of negligence' relating to 'negligence in the occurrence of hospital infections,' which will create a state close to equality of arms, will aid the resolution of the realistic issue of the de facto impossibility of remedying damages occurring due to negligence in the process of occurrence of hospital infections. Also, even if negligence is presumed by law, as the patient side is burdened with proving the causal relationships, such drastic confusion as would occur if the medical care provider side is found fully liable if a hospital infection occurs may be avoided. It is thought that, alongside such efforts, social insurance policy must be improved so as to cover the expenses of medical institutions having strictly implemented efforts to prevent hospital infections in the event that they have suffered damages due to a hospital infection accident, and that close future research and examination into this matter will be required.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.27-55
• /
• 2023

The term "Collaborative medical care" commonly used in South Korea refers to the case where doctors from different medical departments work together to treat a patient within the same medical institution. Therefore, "Collaborative medical care" represents the aspect of a medical team where various medical professionals collaborate based on their expertise to treat patients. Additionally, doctors from different specialties within the medical team engage in horizontal division of labor at an equal status, distributing legal responsibilities according to the principles of division of labor. The Supreme Court also acknowledges cases where multiple doctors collectively provide medical treatment through division of labor or collaboration and states that the doctor who initially attended to the patient must accurately inform the subsequent attending doctor about the patient's condition to enable appropriate measures. In medical institutions with multiple specialties, when doctors from different specialties collaborate to provide medical treatment, the doctor who attended to the patient initially must decide whether collaboration is necessary based on the patient's condition. Subsequently, they must inform the doctor from the relevant specialty about the patient's condition accurately to facilitate appropriate actions. The successor doctor who participates in collaborative medical care must actively communicate relevant treatment information related to the patient's condition with the predecessor doctor who requested collaboration, exchange opinions, and do so until the patient's treatment concludes. However, the determination of the necessity of collaborative medical care should be based on the patient's condition at the time, and it cannot be asserted that collaborative medical care is mandatory in all cases. Whether there is negligence in the decision about the necessity of collaboration will be assessed based on the legal principles of a doctor's duty of medical care.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.155-190
• /
• 2015

The court sentenced meaningful decisions related to the medical service in 2014. The court assumed the negligence of medical staff in the accident if being broken while using the medical equipment for not an original purpose at the time of surgery and ruled that the compensation for damage can be recognized in recognition of the causal relationship between the explanation duty violation and side effect's happening when unproven surgery on safety is implemented regarding the duty of explanation, that in the case of cosmetic surgery, the subject on the duty of explanation needs to be expanded compared to the general medical practice and that the duty of explanation cannot be accepted for the range that cannot be expectable. Also, the court has provided the requirement and limitation of self-determination exercise in case of the crash between patient's self-determination and doctor's duty of care and has ruled that as automobile insurance contract is a contract with the insurance company to pay regarding liability for car accidents, treating patients and taking the insurance money is not illegal activity even for the unlicensed hospital violating the medical law while established. The judgment stating the opinion that medical practitioners cannot be punished according to the medical law prohibiting the receiving of rebate in case that medical practitioners did not receive benefit while the medical institution itself gained an unfair economic benefit also stands out. And the court has ruled that even if the medical institution who received a business suspension is closed, the suspension is still effective in case that the same operator opens a new medical institution in the same place, ruled on the requirement to conduct a medical service outside of the medical institution that the doctor opened and ruled that the administrative penalty cannot be conducted prior to the conviction on charge of violating the medical law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.207-254
• /
• 2018

The major court rulings delivered in 2017 include the ruling that separated the legal character of denture production agreement signed together with medical care agreement and found a subcontracting dimension in the former, and the ruling that overcame the limitations of the theory of entire appearance of a fetus as discussed in civil law by using the legal principle of insurance which suggests that unborn child insurance takes effect after the contract is signed and the first installment of the premium is paid in. As more court rulings find the medical specialists responsible for accidents and injuries from drugs, some argue that medication counseling by the druggist who makes and dispenses drugs should be upgraded. And with respect to a court ruling that denied the hospital's responsibility for an infection-involving accident even if there were no records on specific measures taken in infection management, some criticized the court for being too conservative in recognizing responsibilities. And with respect to infectious disease management, some criticized the court for its interpretation and application of the facts in the direction of denying the negligence. In addition, some claimed that it is necessary to establish institutional system for hospital infection control and its aid for victims, and to improve the system including the reversal of the burden of proof given the special nature of hospital infections. A number of rulings on the duty to disclose included the one which stated that the specific matter did not require a doctor's explanation as it was explained or the specific medical service would have been performed even if no explanation had been given. There was a greatly controversial ruling over the scope of indemnification, which accepted the occurrence of multiple scars and deformation as disorders while regarding breast as a thoracic organ. And a Supreme Court ruling over interpreting Medical Service Act was criticized as overstepping the boundary allowed in the law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.227-251
• /
• 2014

In current law, the premium medical treatment system gives patients the right of choice between normal medical treatment service and premium medical treatment service. Only the doctors having a career more than a certain period of time fixed in the law are eligible for providing the premium medical treatment service. So, the premium medical treatment system is highly related to the patients' right to know and the right of self-determination. The system is also relevant to the so-called 'economic explanation' notion because patients should pay additional fee when they want to use this system. Meanwhile, the situation as follows is problematic as to this system. Although a patient applied for using the premium medical treatment system and the patient also chose his or her own doctor specifically, another doctor who was not selected as premium doctor could make a medical accident. Then, is the another doctor liable for damages because the accident was a medical malpractice or a breach of medical contract? In this study, we are going to examine the problems related with the premium medical treatment system. First, we examine the current law related to the system. Second, we look into the economic explanation duty and its application to the premium medical treatment system. Finally, we examine a real judgment case about a medical practice against the premium medical treatment system and we propose our solution to this case.