• 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.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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.139-171
• /
• 2018

The 「Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes」(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes') provides that the state should compensate the victims of medical accidents occurred irresistibly in childbirth despite that health and medical service personnel fulfilled their duty of care for their damage within the range of its budget(Article 46 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes). Given that victims of medical accidents could expect demage recovery only through lawsuits thus far, this act can be said to be a groundbreaking act. However, However, as 30% of the costs for such medical accident compensation projects are borne by those who have records of childbirth among the founders of health and medical institutions (Article 21 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes), there has been a question about whether doctors are held responsible despite that the accidents such as the deaths of mothers and newborn babies occurred irresistibly without doctors' fault. However, recently, the Constitutional Court ruled that 'the range of founders of health and medical institutions' and 'share ratios of finances for compensation' in Article 46 (3) of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes' related to the imposition of the share of costs are institutional (Constitutional Court ruling dated April 26, 2018, 2015Heonga13, hereinafter referred to as 'the ruling in the case'). Although the ruling in the case was made based on only the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of ban on comprehensive authorization, this paper added a practical judgment. This paper proved that the share of costs in this case has the nature of burden charges in pursuit of study and does not infringe on the property rights of the founders of health medical institutions even in light of the principle of proportionality because there is a legitimate reason for imposing the burden charge. The imposition of the share of costs in the system for compensation for medical accidents occurred irresistibly is against the principle of liability with fault in part. However, the medical accident compensation projects are rational a national policy for the victims of medical accidents and the medical world clearly gains some benefits from the effect to terminate medical disputes. The expansion of finances for compensation through the payments of the share of costs will reduce the suffering and misunderstanding of victims of medical accidents occurred in the process of childbirth and will be very helpful to the construction of stable treatment environments of medical workers by quickly establishing the medical accident compensation projects as such.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

Under the Korean case law, physicians are obliged to disclose or inform the risk associated with a specific treatment to their patients before they perform the treatment. If they fail to do this, they are liable to compensate pain and sufferings. If the patient can establish that he or she would not have consented at all to the treatment had he or she been informed, the physicians are liable to compensate all the loss incurred by the treatment. In this article, the author examines the legitimacy of this case law from the perspective of legal doctrine as well as its practical affect on the medical practice and the furtherance of self-determination of the patient. The fundamental findings are as follows: The case law that has physicians who failed to inform treatment risk compensate pain and sufferings for the infringement of the right of self-determination seems to be a disguised and reduced compensation of all the loss based on the possible malpractice, which cannot be justified in view of the general principles of tort liability. It is necessary to adhere to the requirements of causation and imputation between the failure to inform treatment risk and the specific patient's consent to the treatment. If this causation and imputation is established, all the loss should be compensated. Otherwise, there shall be no liability. The so-called hypothetical consent defence shall be regarded as a part of causation between the failure to inform and the consent. The suggested approach can preserve the essence of physician-patient relationship and fit for the very logic of informed consent better.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.147-196
• /
• 2023

Advances in brain science have made it possible to stimulate the brain to treat brain disorder or to connect directly between the neuron activity and an external devices. Non-invasive neurotechnologies already exist, but invasive neurotechnologies can provide more precise stimulation or measure brainwaves more precisely. Nowadays deep brain stimulation (DBS) is recognized as an accepted treatment for Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. In addition DBS has shown a certain positive effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease and depression. Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are in the clinical stage but help patients in vegetative state can communicate or support rehabilitation for nerve-damaged people. The issue is that the people who need these invasive neurotechnologies are those whose capacity to consent is impaired or who are unable to communicate due to disease or nerve damage, while DBS and BCI operations are highly invasive and require informed consent of patients. Especially in areas where neurotechnology is still in clinical trials, the risks are greater and the benefits are uncertain, so more explanation should be provided to let patients make an informed decision. If the patient is under guardianship, the guardian is able to substitute for the patient's consent, if necessary with the authorization of court. If the patient is not under guardianship and the patient's capacity to consent is impaired or he is unable to express the consent, korean healthcare institution tend to rely on the patient's near relative guardian(de facto guardian) to give consent. But the concept of a de facto guardian is not provided by our civil law system. In the long run, it would be more appropriate to provide that a patient's spouse or next of kin may be authorized to give consent for the patient, if he or she is neither under guardianship nor appointed enduring power of attorney. If the patient was not properly informed of the risks involved in the neurosurgery, he or she may be entitled to compensation of intangible damages. If there is a causal relation between the malpractice and the side effects, the patient may also be able to recover damages for those side effects. In addition, both BCI and DBS involve the implantation of electrodes or microchips in the brain, which are controlled by an external devices. Since implantable medical devices are subject to product liability laws, the patient may be able to sue the manufacturer for damages if the defect caused the adverse effects. Recently, Korea's medical device regulation mandated liability insurance system for implantable medical devices to strengthen consumer protection.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.300-305
• /
• 2002

The construction project is a complex undertaking involving multiple participants. Conflicts are inherently natural in the construction projects and subsequently, a success of projects mainly depends on how well to cope with the conflicts. In the past, courts usually took the position that the professional's exposure in damages for negligent performance of any of his/her duties would not extend to strangers to the contractual arrangement. However, courts today generally reject that rationale which was earlier in vogue and protect architects, engineers, and contractors from being liable to third parties. It means that the lack of privity of contract could rarely protect a profession in a suit alleging the negligence or professional malpractice in preparing plans or specifications. The main goal of this paper is to enhance the understanding of the legal aspect of privity and to provide the trend of no-privity disputes through the analysis of lawsuit cases during the last 40 years. On the base of the analysis, importance of the third relationship and the liability in construction disputes is presented.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.243-279
• /
• 2019

During the main ruling in 2018, it is difficult to find a new judiciary, which is understood to be due to a certain degree of jurisprudence established and focusing mainly on contentious disputes within the framework of damages. The cases in which the court's judgment is reversed helped to understand the reason and the judiciary, and it was confirmed that the dispute in the medical lawsuit became more and more intense. Decisions on responsibility restrictions and medical records were also noticeable, with a significant increase in the number of verdicts relating to the doubt about medical records. This is considered to be part of the increasing number of cases in which the parties raise questions about medical records, and several cases were categorized and introduced at this opportunity. We also introduce the case of forced discharge of long-term hospitalized patients and medical fee bill, because it was judicial interest after the Supreme Court ruling that the cost of treatment for the after-effects of medical malpractice can not be claimed to the patient.