• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.83-122
• /
• 2014

Compared with medical cases and health care law from other countries there has been a lot of progress on medical law, especially on medical precedents in Korea. However, in recent years, medical precedents tend to reflect a realistic position of health care providers, rather than normative position of the victim. The burden of proof to prove strict liability is given to patients in civil law suits by courts, patients generally has the burden of proof. The rate of claims to prove the negligence of medical malpractice is falling significantly. Even if the error is acknowledged, it is not enough to get right to be relief for patients by increasing limitations of liability or ratio of patient's own negligence. Compensation fee is included in medical fees and risk of medical malpractice actions contributes ultimately to a health care consumer. In conclusion, author represents a major the new upgrade of above mentioned problem. By advising that court should assess actively for the perspective of victim for medical negligence we will be able to exercise remedies of patients' rights and to prevent recurring medical accidents and also contribute to medical advances.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

Due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits, it is difficult for medical consumers, who are weak in getting information when it comes to health care problem, to secure all information inside the hospital. Even if you are confident about the hospital infection, it is true that people have difficult to obtain medical testimony by expert. It is seen as no easy task to testify to the malpractice of colleagues who work in the same field not only in our country but also abroad, when a doctor gives negative testimony to another doctor in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Although few health care providers will be motivated to take medical care from the outset, testimony or statements from a medical practitioner can have a significant impact on the outcome of a lawsuit, as it is impossible for the patient to control or be aware of the whole process of medical conduct, especially in the event of a hospital infection and the victim. If the hospital can prove the causality of damages caused by negligence of the employees or supervision of the hospital itself in a medical suit caused by the infection, the level of protection of the victim could be raised further. We sought to find a solution to these problems by looking at the provisions of other laws related to hospital infection. In particular, as the comparative legal review regarding hospital infection, Germany's legislative precedent sets a medical contract as a typical civil law contract, so it is thought that looking at German civil law regulations also has implications for Korean law. We also tried to improve the French Special Act 'rights of patients' and we can look at the consequent changes in court cases. Finally, the content of the U.S. case's and the theory of 'the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur' in relation to it show that doctors and hospitals have been forced to shift the burden of proof through this theory. This paper tried to find out the implications of mitigating the burden of proof by reviewing various issues that might be related to medical litigation of hospital infection from a comparative point of view.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.139-147
• /
• 2014

Medical disputes the problem that occurs essentially among the rapidly increasing of the demand for health care and the attention of the public health. The subject of dispute is mostly criminal penalties and civil redress due to a physician's medical malpractice, resolved by agreement was prioritized. They trying to solve through the litigation and exercise the skills. But, the lack of clear standards and related legislation make difficult to solve the problem. for this, "The Act of Medical Malpractice Damage's Relief and Mediation for Medical Dispute Resolution" (Medical Disputes Adjustment Act) was enacted in April 7, 2011 and performed in Apr. 8, 2012. To solve the problem autonomously between the parties. It is the legislative intent such as mediation or arbitration to solve the conflict between the parties. But there are some problems that examined from the perspective of constitutional review with the criminal and civil problems. Therefore, this paper will find out the legal issues about Medical Dispute Adjustment Act and the constitutional and civil issues. And want to expect to be prepared the more stable and efficient solution of medical disputes.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.85-116
• /
• 2013

Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, "K-MEDI" in abbr. herein-after, is established on Apr. 9, 2012 according to the law cited in the title above for the purpose of settling medical disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient manner. Two special professional organizations are established in K-MEDI, one of them is Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee(hereinafter referred to as the "Mediation Committee") and the other Medical Malpractice Appraisal Board(hereinaf-ter referred to as the "Appraisal Board"), the mission of the latter is to investigate the facts concerning the disputed medical conduct and to research as to and apprai-se whether the medical conduct was negligent and whether a causal relationship exists. Each panel organized in the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shall be comprised of five mediators or appraisers, including necessarily a judge or a prose-cutor respectively and any disputed case regardless of the scale, the importance or the complicacy shall be handled by a panel. As the system is not thought efficient or economic, the number of the members comprising a panel or total members com-prising the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shoud be adjusted, and the process shoud be versified, including the "Rapid Process," for instance. A petition for the mediation of a medical dispute shall be rejected if the respondent fails to notify K-MEDI of his/her intention to accede to the mediation within 14days from the day on which the petition for the mediation was served(Art. 27 Cl. 7). As the option of an arbitrary decision whether the mediation proceedings shall be commenced or not given to the respondent by the clause is thought unfair, making the process unstable, and moreover, diminishing the purpose of the system established by the law cited above for solving the medical disputes, the clause shoud be amended not to allow the respondent the option of such an arbitrary deci-sion. K-MEDI shall conduct the "Program for Compensation of Medical Accidents"(Art 46) according to which unavoidable injuries caused by the medical accidents in the cour-se of childbirth and the "Advances for Damages"(Art. 47) that are the compensating moneys paid to victims in medical malpractice cases who fail to receive money at all or partly from the operator or the professional of a public health or medical institution although he/she has a final and conclusive right to be paid by them. Some operators or professionals of such institutions claim that both the programs violate their fundamental rights assured by the constitution, and that it be a justifica-tion of refusal to accede to the mediation. As any of the programs needs not to be conducted by K-MEDI, it may be a proper solution to change the conductor of the programs to avoid the unproductive controversy.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1999.10a
• /
• pp.85-85
• /
• 1999

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2002.10a
• /
• pp.181-182
• /
• 2002

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1996.10a
• /
• pp.343-344
• /
• 1996

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1998.10b
• /
• pp.208-209
• /
• 1998

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.181-207
• /
• 2008

With recent emphasis on evidence based medicine, clinical practice guidelines are seen as a potential mechanism by which unify various managerial and professional approaches to improving the quality of care. The development process of guidelines has been the subject of much research. and it is need translating the medical evidence of research into a clinical practice guidelines. the gathered evidence needs to be interpreted into a clinical, public health, policy, or payment context. The term 'clinical practice guidelines' can evoke a diverse range of responses from healthcare personnel. Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly used in patient management but some clinicians are not familiar with their origin or appropriate applications. Understanding the limitations as well as benefits of CPG could enable clinicians to have clearer view of the place of guidelines in every practice. In the context of increasing complaints and litigation in healthcare, the legal implications of clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance. Clinical practice guidelines could, in theory, influence the manner in which the courts establish negligence by suggesting the doctor breached the duty of care by failing to provide the required standard of medical care. In several studies, the CPGs were relevent to and played a pivotal role in the proof of negligence. Much depends on the quality of guidelines and the tools developed and the authoritativeness of a guideline. Recently, there are several opinions the court also should review the validity and reliability of expert testimony including medical evidence. and widespread use of guidelines in malpractice lawsuit could lead the physicians to greater compliance with guidelines in the long term. In conclusion, Health care reformers, physicians as well as guidelines developers should understand that guidelines have both medical and legal aspects as a double-edges sword. so clinicians, legal representatives and decision-makers should not defer unduly to guidelines.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.397-445
• /
• 2010

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.