• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.123-164
• /
• 2014

Under the new system of 'Separation of pharmaceutical prescription and dispensing' in Korea, which was implemented in 2000, physician could not dispense a medicine, and outpatient should have a physician's prescription filled at a drugstore. After pharmacist makes up outpatient's prescription, National Health Insurance Service(NHIS) pay for outpatient's medicine to pharmacist, except an outpatient's own medicine charge. And NHIS only pay for outpatient's prescription fee to physician and, physician doesn't derive profit from dispensing medicine in itself. Nevertheless, if physician writes out a prescription with violation of 'Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits', NHIS clawed back the payment of outpatient's prescription and medicine from the physician or the medical institution which the physician belongs to. In the past, NHIS's confiscation was in accordance with 'the National Health Care Insurance Act, Article 52, Clause 1'. But, since 2006 when the Supreme Court declared that there was no legal basis on the NHIS's confiscation of outpatient's medicine payment, NHIS had put in a claim for illegal prescriptions on the basis 'the Korean Civil law, Article 750(tort)'. So, Many medical institutions filed civil actions against NHIS. The key point of this actions was whether the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits constitute of the law of tort. On this point, the first trial and the second trial took different position. Finally the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitution of the law of tort in 2013. In this paper, the author will review critically the decision of the Supreme Court, and consider the relativeness between the legal effect of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits and the constitution of the issuing outpatient prescriptions with violations of Criteria for the Medical Care Benefits as the law of tort.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2000.10a
• /
• pp.201-202
• /
• 2000

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2014

The court handed down meaningful rulings related to medical sectors in 2013. This paper presents the ruling that the care workers could be the performance assistants of the care-giving service although the duties of care worker are not included in the liability stipulated in the medical contract signed with the hospital for reason of clear distinction of duties between care workers and nurses within the hospital in connection with the contract which was entered into between the hospital and patients. In relation to negligence and causal relationship, the court recognized medical negligence associated with the failure to detect the brain tumor due to the negligent interpretation of MRI findings while rejecting the causal relationship with consequential cerebral hemorrhage. The court also recognized negligence based on the observation on the grounds of inadequate medical records in a case involving the hypoxic brain damage caused during the cosmetic surgery. In terms of the scope of compensation for damages, this paper presents the ruling that the compensation should be estimated based on causal relationship only in case the breach of the 'obligation of explanation' is recognized, however rejecting the reparation for de factor property damages in the form of compensation, and the ruling that the lawsuit could be instituted in case that the damages exceeded the agreed scope despite the agreement that the hospital would not be held responsible for any aftereffects of surgery from the standpoint of lawsuit, along with the ruling that recognized the daily net income by reflecting the unique circumstances faced by individual students of Korean National Police University and artists of Western painting. Many rulings were handed down with respect to medical certificate, prescription, etc., in 2013. This paper introduced the ruling which mentioned the scope of medical certificate, the ruling that related to whether the diagnosis over the phone at the issuance of prescription could constitute the direct diagnosis of patient, along with the ruling that required the medical certificate to be generated in the name of doctor who diagnosed the patients, and the ruling which proclaimed that it would constitute the breach of Medical Act if the prescription was issued to the patients who were not diagnosed. Moreover, this paper also introduced the ruling that related to whether the National Health Insurance Service could make claim to the hospitals for the reimbursement of the health insurance money paid to pharmacies based on the prescription in the event that the hospitals provided prescription of drugs to outpatients in violation of the laws and regulations.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2020

Telemedicine can be defined as "medical activities performed remotely by medical personnel using information and communication technology." So far, many scholars in Korea have understood that only telemedicine between medical personnel is allowed and telemedicine between medical personnel and patients is prohibited based on Article 34 of Medical Service Act. However, Article 34 is only a restriction on the performing place of medical profession, not a prohibition on telemedicine itself. And, there are no regulations prohibiting telemedicine under the korean medical law. So, it is difficult to say that telemedicine is generally prohibited under the korean medical law, apart from the health insurance medical treatment benefit standards. However, there is controversy in interpretation regarding the meaning of "direct diagnosis" in Articles 17 and 17-2 of Medical Service Act. The Constitutional Court of Korea interpreted this as "face-to-face diagnosis", while the Supreme Court of Korea interpreted it as "self diagnosis". In light of the dictionary meaning of 'direct' and the interpretation of related medical law regulations, I think the Supreme Court's interpretation is valid. Although "direct diagnosis" does not mean "face-to-face diagnosis", the concept of "diagnosis" implies "principle of face-to-face diagnosis". In addition, "non-face-to-face diagnosis" are only allowed to supplement "face-to-face diagnosis", so the problems caused by "non-face-to-face diagnosis" can be fully overcome. In the end, the limit of telemedicine is how faithful the diagnosis was.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.213-260
• /
• 2009

While the medical supplies have positive functions such as extending lifespan, recovering health, and preventing diseases, they also cause unexpected tragic consequences due to their side effects, and the magnitude of such damage inevitably increases due to the mechanism of mass production, mass distribution, and mass consumption of those medical supplies. Therefore, needless to say, the optimal way to prevent or reduce such damage is rather through medical supply manufacturers' producing non-defective products, or through the government's controlling production and sales of medical supplies with more aggressive exercise of regulatory authority on medical supply manufacturers, than through a remedy by a legal relief after using medical supplies. In this case, although the victim died due to the defect of the cold medicine, 'CONTAC 600', the drug company's responsibility to cover damages was not recognized because a defect could not be found in the then-manufacturing process. Thus, while pharmaceutical companies are gaining economic profits by producing and selling a medical supplies, if they do not take any remedy measures for the victims of their products' side effects, the victims have to use medical supplies under their own responsibility of taking a risk, and they have to accept the full damage of the potential consequence. Therefore, to remove such absurdity and contradiction, and to practically remedy the victim of medical supplies' side effects, the pharmaceutical side effects remedy project pending in the the Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical Instruments Lawneeds to be actively implemented.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.165-181
• /
• 2014

Advertisements and labels provided by businesses are highly likely to contain false or exaggerated content because of the business's purposes. In these cases, it is difficult to deliver proper information to consumers, and regulation is necessary to some extent. In particular, information delivery is more important in the health medical and biotechnology areas than any other because of their specialized characteristics. The Fair Labeling and Advertising Act regulates ordinary content for labels and advertisements, while individual laws stipulate regulations for false or exaggerated advertisements and labels. Criminal law might apply in fraud cases depending on their characteristics. Therefore, consistency is needed among criminal fraud laws and regulations, the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, and legal punishment. However, a review of all these laws found that there is no such consistency. Accordingly, this paper asserts the need for improvement in this area.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.505-534
• /
• 2008

Aesthetic plastic surgery rarely has the lifesaving, the medical necessity, and the emergency, because it was executed in order to acquire personal satisfaction in the external features. In addition, aesthetic plastic surgery has the strong commerciality in that it is based on the attraction of a client through medical advertisement and the range of uninsurance. These characteristics cause whether aesthetic plastic surgery is included in medical procedure and the legal contract between physician and client is controversial issue. Also, attention and explanation in aesthetic plastic surgery are more emphasized than those in general medical procedure. According, this document presents the various characteristics of aesthetic plastic surgery, which differs from that of general medical procedure.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2020

There is a growing voice that medical information should be shared because it can prepare for genetic diseases or cancer by analyzing and utilizing medical information in big data or artificial intelligence to develop medical technology and improve patient care. The utilization and protection of patients' personal information are the same as two sides of the same coin. Medical institutions or medical personnel should take extra caution in handling personal information with high environmental distinct characteristics and sensitivity, which is different from general information processors. In general, the patient's personal information is processed by medical personnel or medical institutions through the processes of collection, creation, and destruction. Still, the use of terms related to personal information in the Medical Service Act is jumbled, or the scope of application is unclear, so it relies on the interpretation of precedents. For the medical personnel or the founder of the medical institution, in the case of infringement of Article 24(4), it cannot be regarded that it means only medical treatment information among personal information, whether or not it should be treated the same as the personal information under Article 23, because the sensitive information of patients is recorded, saved, and stored in electronic medical records. Although the prohibition of information leakage under Article 19 of the Medical Service Act has a revision; 'secret' that was learned in business was revised to 'information', but only the name was changed, and the benefit and protection of the law is the same as the 'secret' of the criminal law, such that the patient's right to self-determination of personal information is not protected. The Privacy Law and the Local Health Act consider the benefit and protection of the law in 'information learned in business' as the right to self-determination of personal information and stipulate the same penalties for personal information infringement such as leakage, forgery, alteration, and damage. The privacy regulations of the Medical Service Act require that the terms be adjusted uniformly because the jumbled use of terms can confuse information subjects, information processors, and shows certain limitations on the protection of personal information because the contents or scope of the regulations of the Medical Service Law for special corporations and the Privacy Law may cause confusion in interpretation. The patient's personal information is sensitive and must be safely protected in its use and processing. Personal information must be processed in accordance with the protection principle of Privacy Law, and the rights such as privacy, freedom, personal rights, and the right to self-determination of personal information of patients or guardians, the information subject, must be guaranteed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.399-434
• /
• 2014

A criminal liability of the divisional medical-institution is faced a new aspect in the connection with development of the medical techonology. Especially, a division of labor in the medical-institution in Korea will be greatly increased in the foreseeable future. A general hospital will be frequently confronted with sofisticated techniques such as MRI, CT-screen. Accordings to the nature of its functions, a general hospital may make accommodation or services or both available for patients who give undertakings (or for whom undertakings are given) to pay, in respect of the accommodation or services (or both) such charges as the government may determine. It shall be the duty of the government to develop, promote and regulate a criminal liability of the divisional medical-institution. Above all, the government shall have to determine the standard of a criminal liability of the medical-institution in the horizontal specialization and the vertical specialization. But, the court may give finally by directions the standard of the criminal liability of the divisional medical-institution.

• 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.