• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.179-207
• /
• 2002

This study outlined the malpractice of information professionals. including librarians and information brokers, providing inaccurate and insufficient information to the users, which was derived from the lack of reasonable care in the performance of professional duties and caused actual damage to the users. The author analysed the essential requirements for the charge of information malpractice and suggested the method of safeguard against it.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

Due to defendant's wrongful act by implant surgery, plaintiff has been suffered serious damages to his face and teeth, and pain caused by establishing implanted teeth. Jeonju Appellate Court sentenced to pay future medical expenses and alimony to the plaintiff in compensation for breach of duty or torts. The ruling is designed to relieve the burden of proof because it is extremely difficult for non-experts to determine whether dentists violated their 'duty of care' or whether there was a causal relationship between damages to medial treatment. It was judged that if symptoms that contributed to the patient's significant outcome occurred during or after surgery, such symptoms could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence if indirect facts were proven to be other than medical negligence. Originally, the shifting of burden of proof in Germany, has already been developed in medical malpractice case since 1940s. In order to guarantee the patients' right, §630h German Civil Code (BGB) - presumption of negligence in the realization of controllable risk- has been also legislated. BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) has been interested in ensuring that the principle of equality between patients and doctors. So, in this study, we wanted to refer to German precedent cases to analyzing Korean medical malpractice lawsuit. In particular, the decision could be significant in that it approaches closer to allows the shifting burden of proof in drastically growing dental malpractice cases. This is clearly confirmed in the judgment of the dentist's "fault" that "if indirect facts about the symptom or occurrence are proven to be cause other than medical negligence, such symptoms can be presumed to be due to medical negligence."

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.37-73
• /
• 2020

Medical practice with medical adaptability is not illegal. Consent to medical practice is also not intended to exclude causes of Illegality. The patient's consent to medical practice is the exercise of the right to self-determination, and the patient's right to self-determination is take shape through the doctor's information. If a doctor violates his duty to inform, failure to inform or lack of inform constitutes an act of illegality of omission in itself. As a result, the legal interest of self-determination is violated. The patient has the right to know and make decisions on his or her own, even when it is not connected to the benefit of life and body as the subject of the body. If that infringed and lost, the non-property damage shall be recognized and the immaterial damage must be compensated. On the other hand, the violation of the duty of information does not belong to deny the compensation for physical damage. Which the legal interest violated by violation of the obligation to inform is the self-determination, and loss of opportunity of choice is recognized as ordinary damage. However, if the opportunity of choice was lost because of the infringement of the right to self-determination and the patient could not choice the better way, that dose not occur plainly bad results, under the prove of these causal relationship, that bad results could be compensated. But the unexpectable damage could not be compensated, because the physical damage is considered as the special damage due to the violation of the right of the self-determination.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.143-163
• /
• 2018

Implant procedure belongs to so called a commercialized medical treatment, its procedure is simple and clear, and the possibility of success is almost 100%. In addition, it is a selective method rather than an inevitable method for a patient's health, so the importance of liability for explanation is especially emphasized for protection of autonomous decisions by patients. Considering these characteristics, the plaintiff in the relevant case said that the contract of implant procedure has the characteristic of subcontract, and only the failure of implant itself and the violation of liability for explanation should be the defendant's fault liability. In addition, although the above procedure contract is considered as delegation rather than subcontract, whether it's the defendant's malpractice should be judged by general people's common sense rather than average people in the industry. Therefore, if all the implanted teeth were removed due to bleeding and pains, and the patient suffered from dysaesthesia during the process, the defendant's malpractice is fully proved. When the judgements of implant medical malpractice were researched, the court doesn't consider implant contract as subcontract, but it judges dentist's malpractice by whether the implant itself is successful, so it seems that the court acknowledges similar characteristics with subcontract whose purpose is completion of work to some degree. In addition, considering the detailed contents of presented medical malpractices, it seems that judging medical malpractice is based on the common sense of general people. Therefore, the argument of the plaintiff is valid when the fact the adjustment amount is relevant to the amount that the plaintiff initially claimed is considered even though the relevant case was decided to be compulsory mediation.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.48 no.8
• /
• pp.813-819
• /
• 2005

Purpose : Medicolegal problems start when the patient asserts the mistake of doctor and doctor does not accept it. The purpose of this study is to assess the actual condition of medicolegal problems and to provide solutions of medicolegal problems in the pediatric field. Methods : There is not official statistical data about medicolegal problems in our country. We gathered data of legal insurance program of Korean Medical Association(KMA) and court cases and other fragmentary data. Results : Between 1981 and 1995, of total 2,338 cases reported to legal problem insurance program of KMA, most common ones were 748 cases of obstetrics and gynecology. Pediatric case was ranked at the 5th, 74 cases(3.1%). According to analysis of 41 medicolegal cases' after 1990, maltreatment of patient had the highest incidence of 14 cases, injection and medication were related to 12 cases, misdiagnosis was 9 cases, patient management were related to 4 cases, and others were 2 cases. The trial result of the medicolegal cases was that 31 cases were compensated, and 8 cases were defeated, and 2 cases were still in the process. Conclusion : The aspect of medical legal problem has the tendency of radicalism and systematization. This brings an economic destitution in the patient and gives damage to a doctor. In order to reduce medicolegal problem, doctor should offer a duty of explanation and efforts to his best to satisfy patient and endeavor to make an intimate doctor-patient relationship.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.47-79
• /
• 2019

The Korean Society of Law and Medicine has faithfully played the role of professional academic organizations last 20 years in terms of academic activities, accumulated achievements, diversity, professionalism, and influence on academic circles. The Korean Society of Law and Medicine and the Journal of Medical Law serve as a platform for academic information and exchange of opinions on medical law. Medical law began in the midst of increasing conflicts and disputes caused by medical malpractice and the enactment and legal coercion of medical care as pressure on medical workers. It tried to find a way to coexist with each other through the encounter and convergence of medicine and law. Medical criminal law extends from traditional crimes in the realm of life and body protection to bioethics violations caused by the development of biomedical technology, corruption and economic crime in the medical field. Medical law has evolved into a comprehensive legal area dealing with legal issues raised in medical treatment, healthcare, bioethics, and life sciences technology. On the legal side, medical law is not independent legal areas. It is overlapping with traditional law areas such as civil law, administrative law, criminal law, social law, civil and criminal procedure law. However, it is now established as a convergence study in medicine, bioethics, life science, as well as in various fields of law. It has become an area where collaboration is needed with the field of law, medicine, ethics, sociology and economics. Medical criminal law has undergone a dynamic development over the last two decades. The development of medicine and medical technology provides new and innovative methods of diagnosis and treatment. The achievements and risks of revolutionary developments in biotechnology, genetic engineering and medicine coexist. While there is a dazzling achievement that mankind has hoped for: combating disease and improving health, it also creates unwanted side effects and risks to humans. There is a need to reconsider ethical and legal principles. The discovery and development of patient identity and autonomy has changed the medical doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, it was complicated by the triangle relationship of patients, medical doctors and insurance. Legal matters are also complicated. This is why the necessity of legislation is emerging. Criminal punishment provisions are also required. The Medical Law and Biomedical Law are systematically and coherently deformed as mosaic-based legislation that takes place whenever there are social issues, citizens' needs, and medical organizations' interests, rather than sufficient enactment and revision procedures. It needs a complete overhaul, and this is possible through interdisciplinary collaboration which is the strength of The Korean Society of Law and Medicine.