• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• 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.7 no.2
• /
• pp.179-218
• /
• 2006

To succeed the claim of medical negligence, the plaintiff should establish the medical profession's fault, and the causation between the fault and damages. The faults are judged on lege artis, which is based on expert witness. However, judges often infer the faults and causations from circumstantial evidences and patients' injuries. This presumptions depend on the law of nature(Erfahrungsgesetz). The law of nature can explain the typical development of the event. If the circumstantial evidences were in accordance with that, the faults and causations would be able to be recognized by the judges. Therefore the standards of comparison such as lege artis or the law of nature play an important role for medical negligence liabilities to be imputed to doctors or hospitals. The factual elements necessary to assume the fault is similar to those of the causation, for the concept of the fault is correlated with that of the causation. The elements include the temporal and spatial proximity between damages and defendant's medical treatments, no existence of other causations, the probability of bed results developed by the medical treatments, and so on. These enable the fault and causation to be assumed at the same times.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.65-117
• /
• 2011

This article analyzes the case (2008Da16776) which has the issue how patients have to prove causal relationship when patients claim against pharmaceutical companies alleging that patients were infected with virus due to contaminated blood products. The Supreme court held that: (1) if patients prove that they didn't have symptoms suggesting virus infection before administration of blood products, the virus infection had been confirmed after administration of blood products, and there were significant potential of contamination of the blood products with the virus, the defect in blood products or the negligence of pharmaceutical company in making blood products shall be presumed to cause the infection of the victim. (2) The pharmaceutical companies could reverse the presumption by proving the blood products were not contaminated, but the fact that the victims were treated with the blood products manufactured by other companies or had received blood transfusions is not enough to reverse the presumption. The case is the first decision whether the burden of proof about causal relationship could be reduced in pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit. Hereafter pharmaceutical product liability cases, it would be necessary to reduce the burden of proof about causal relationship in order to make substantive equality between patients and pharmaceutical companies.

• 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.

• Korean journal of applied entomology
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.323-329
• /
• 2014

Population of fruit flies was monitored by using methyl eugenol trap during 2010-2011 in Yezin, Myanmar. Population numbers were analyzed with meteorological factors including rainfall, temperature, relative humidity and duration of sunshine. Samples of mango, guava, and jujube fruits were collected from orchards. The fruits were kept in containers so that the species of flies infesting the fruit could be identified when the adult insects emerged and to assess damage caused by fruit flies. Regression analyses indicated that populations of fruit flies were observed to be positively correlative with rainfall, minimum temperature and relative humidity, and negatively correlative with the duration of sunshine. Eleven species of fruit flies, Bactrocera arecae, B. carambolae, B. correcta, B. dorsalis, B. kandiensis, B. latilineola, B. malaysiensis, B. neocognata, B. raiensis, B. verbascifoliae, and Carpomya vesuvina, were identified. B. correcta and B. dorsalis were the most abundant and accounted for 29.3% and 28.6% of total emerged adults in the different fruit samples. The highest percentage of fruit damage was observed on guava ($59{\pm}15.4$), followed by mango ($35.5{\pm}12.1$) while the lowest was recorded on jujube ($18.5{\pm}7.9$).

• 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.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.33 no.5
• /
• pp.109-117
• /
• 2019

When those who have caused a fire have no ability to compensate fire victims, the victims tend to charge fire agencies for state compensation to receive damage relief. This study analyzed two state compensation cases related to fires. The findings suggest that if there is a causal relationship between fire damage and mistakes committed by fire officials that are associated with fire prevention or special fire inspections, courts usually decide that fire agencies should compensate fire victims. Despite the introduction of a new article in the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting Services on December 26, 2017, titled "Exemption from Responsibility for Fire-Fighting Activities", exemptions are only available if inevitability of the activity has been proven. However, unlike rescue or first aid activity, inevitability is difficult to prove when it comes to fire inspection activity. Therefore, it is expected that state compensation suits related to fires will not decrease.