• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.21 no.8
• /
• pp.305-314
• /
• 2021

According to the recent judgment of Supreme Court, in case when the National Health Insurance Service pays the insurance to a victim of torts, and then subrogate the victim's claim for damages, the scope of institution's subrogation should be limited to the amount of the assailant's responsibility rate of the institution charge, and the amount of compensation claimed by the victim to the assailant should be calculated in the method of contributory negligence after deduction. The court has judged that the institution could subrogate the whole amount of institution charge in the limit of assailant's damages, and the method of deduction after contributory negligence should be applied when calculating the assailant's damages to the victim. Supreme Court decision is greatly significant in the aspect of harmonizing the nature of health insurance as property right and social insurance as the beneficiaries could get additional supplement, and also seeking the balance between insurer and beneficiary. With the changed legal principles of Supreme Court in the scope of institution subrogation like this, the necessities to complement the litigation relation, legislation, and institution were suggested.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.137-166
• /
• 2018

Wenn nach dem starken Trinken etwas strafbares passiert, so ist das Gesamtverhalten als $strafw{\ddot{u}}rdig$ und strafbar anzuerkennen. Aber nach dem Schuldprinzip handelt ohne Schuld, wer bei Begehung der Tat $unf{\ddot{a}}hig$ ist, das Unrecht der Tat einzusehen oder nach dieser Einsicht zu handeln(Koinzidenzprinzip). Die Rechtsfigur der "actio libera in causa" dient dazu, diese in $h{\ddot{a}}ufigen$ $F{\ddot{a}}llen$ als kriminalpolitisch $unerw{\ddot{u}}nscht$ empfundene $L{\ddot{u}}cke$ zu umgehen. Dabei kommt auch dem Vollrauschtatbestand in der Praxis $erh{\ddot{o}}hte$ Bedeutung zu. Der deutsche Gesetzgeber war sich bei der Aufnahme des Vollrauschtatbestandes in das Gesetz durchaus $bewu{\ss}t$, $da{\ss}$ die Vorschrift eine Ausnahme zur Schuldzurechnungsregelung darstellte. Er $w{\ddot{a}}hlte$ jedoch die Form eines $selbst{\ddot{a}}ndigen$ Tatbestandes, um die Durchbrechung des reinen Schuldprinzips $ertr{\ddot{a}}glich$ zu machen. Der Vollrauschtatbestand ist ein abstraktes $Gef{\ddot{a}}hrdungdsdelikt$ -demnach die im Rausch verwirklichte rechtswidrige Tat nur objektive Bedingung der Strafbarkeit ist -, das sachlich eine Schuldzurechnungsregelung $enth{\ddot{a}}lt$, und zwar eine Ausnahme $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$ die Regelungen ${\ddot{u}}ber$ Schuldzurechnung. Dieser Vollrauschtatbestand ist dennoch als regitime $Erg{\ddot{a}}nzung$ der in Schuldzurechnungsregelungen beschriebenen $Schuldzurechnungsgrunds{\ddot{a}}tze$ anzusehen. Er steht $n{\ddot{a}}mlich$ in Einklang mit dem Schuldgrundsatz, wenn als subjektives Tatbestandsmerkmal des Vollrausches die Kenntnis der $Gef{\ddot{a}}hrlichkeit$ des Rauschzustandes $f{\ddot{u}}r$ die Begehung von Delikten vorausgesetzt wird.

• 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.21 no.1
• /
• pp.107-152
• /
• 2020

During the main ruling in 2019, a number of rulings that were of interest or meaningful were handed down, such as just because the complication of medical practice has occurred, there is no presumption of negligence, a case involving a fall accident in which a lot of culpability has recently been made. the death of a well-known singer that caused a sensation, a case about damages caused by MERS in 2015, which is more meaningful in connection with damages caused by COVID-19, an infectious disease that has recently hit the world, including Korea. In preaching the principles of the law, just because there has been a complication caused by medical practice, there is no presumption of negligence, 'The scope of the complication without presumption of negligence' was determined differently by the court, the court was not able to specify the criteria. Specific circumstances were presented to limit the responsibility of the medical institution while acknowledging the malpractice of the medical institution in relation to the fall accident. In relation to the scope of damages, judgment was made on issues related to the calculation of lost profits of medical malpractice; criteria for determining celebrities' daily income, criteria for determining daily income in case of receiving survivor's pension due to medical accident, an incident in which the daily income is denied if the labor capacity is already lost at the time of a medical accident. But, it seems that judgments should be made based on clearer and more reasonable standards. Related to Medical Advertise, specific logic of judgment was presented as to whether it was interpreted as being in accordance with the specific prohibition listed in Article 27 paragraph 3 of the Medical Law, which is the criterion for violation of the Medical Law, or if it constitutes a significant harm to the order of the medical market. In response to the prohibition of operating the multiple medical institutions, the Constitutional Court decided that it was constitutional because it did not violate the regulations on excessive funding, and rationally limited the scope of the prohibited 'redundant operation'. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that even a medical institution established and operated in violation of the Medical Service Act did not make it impossible to receive all medical care benefits implemented by a medical institution under the National Health Insurance Act. Significant rulings were finalized that recognized the existence of specific protection obligations for the people of the country in the management of infectious diseases.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.297-341
• /
• 2017

We searched out court rulings on medical affairs through court library search sites and specialized articles on medically relevant judgments sentenced in 2016. And we selected and analyzed the judgements of the court we considered important as follows. In relation to the medical civil judgements, (1) In the case of applying surgery for female infertility during cesarean section operation but it has not been done, we expressed the regret for the lack of judgment in the process of entering the medical contract, introducing the rights infringed and the scope of compensation, (2) We pointed out that the ruling on the medical malpractice estimation goes out of limit of negligence estimation doctrine, and that the court asked very high degree duty of the traditional Korean medicine doctors to cooperate with Western medicine doctors. (3) In the case of admitting hospital's 100% responsibility, we pointed out the court overlooked the uncertainty and good intention of the medical practice. (4) Additionally, We introduced the cases admitted the hospital's responsibility in the accident related to the psychiatric patients in closed ward. Relating to a medical criminal ruling, we analyzed the supreme court decision about whether the dentist's Botox injection on the patient's face is a medical practice within the scope of the license from the viewpoint whether it is within the possible range of the word. And, concerning decisions on healthcare administration, (1) we analyzed the case about when medical personnel operate multiple medical institutions, whether it is possible to get back medical care costs under the National Health Insurance Law, (2) We commented on the ruling regarding explanation obligation in terms of object, degree, subject of explanation as a prerequisite for permissible arbitrary uninsured benefits. Finally, we reviewed the decision of the Constitutional Court about the Article 24 of the Mental Health Law, which it had allowed for a mental patient to be hospitalized forcibly by the consent of two guardians and a diagnosis of a psychiatrist. Also we indicated the problems of the revised Mental Health Law.

• 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.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.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.283-296
• /
• 2006

Along with the development of scientific technologies, health care has been growing remarkably, and as the social life quality improves with increasing interest in health, the demand for medical service is rapidly increasing. However, medical accident and medical dispute also are rapidly increasing due to various factors such as, increasing sense of people's right, lack of understanding in the nature of medical practice, over expectation on medical technique, commercialize medical supply system, moral degeneracy and unawareness of medical jurisprudence by doctors, widespread trend of mutual distrust, and lack of systematized device for solution of medical dispute. This study analysed 30 cases of civil suit in the year between 1994 to 2004, which were selected among the medical dispute cases in dental field with the judgement collected from organizations related to dentistry and department of oral medicine, Yonsei university dental hospital. The following results were drawn from the analyses: 1. The distribution of year showed rapid increase of medical dispute after the year 2000. 2. In the types of medical dispute, suit associated with tooth extraction took 36.7% of all. 3. As for the cause of medical dispute, uncomfortable feeling and dissatisfaction with the treatment showed 36.7%, death and permanent damage showed 16.7% each. 4. Winning the suit, compulsory mediation and recommendation for settlement took 60.0% of judgement result for the plaintiff. 5. For the type of medical organization in relation to medical dispute, 60.0% was found to be the private dental clinics, and 30.0% was university dental hospitals. 6. For the level of trial, dispute that progressed above 2 or 3 trials was of 30.0%. 7. For the amount of claim for damage, the claim amounting between 50 million to 100 million won was of 36.7%, and that of more than 100 million won was 13.3%, and in case of the judgement amount, the amount ranging from 10 million to 30 million won was of 40.0%, and that of more than 100 million won was of 6.7%. 8. For the number of dentist involved in the suit, 26.7% was of 2 or more dentists. 9. For the amount of time spent until the judgement, 46.7% took 11 to 20 months, and 36.7% took 21 to 30 months. 10. For medical malpractice, 46.7% was judged to be guilty, and 70% of the cases had undergone medical judgement or verification of the case by specialists during the process of the suit. 11. In the lost cases of doctors(18 cases), 72.2% was due to violence of carefulness in practice and 16.7% was due to missing of explanation to patient. Medical disputes occurring in the field of dentistry are usually of relatively less risky cases. Hence, the importance of explanation to patient is emphasized, and since the levels of patient satisfaction are subjective, improvement of the relationship between the patient and the dentist and recovery of autonomy within the group dentist are essential in addition to the reduction of technical malpractice. Moreover, management measure against the medical dispute should be set up through complement of the current doctors and hospitals medical malpractice insurance which is being conducted irrationally, and establishment of system in which education as well as consultation for medical disputes lead by the group of dental clinicians and academic scholars are accessible.