• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.260-288
• /
• 2000

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.55 no.5
• /
• pp.366-373
• /
• 2020

The task of defining the concept of 'disability' has proven to be surprisingly difficult. The way disability is assessed in the world suggests that very different conceptions of disability are being presumed. It is very hard to suggest appropriate criteria for assessing a disability that accurately demonstrates the presence and measures the severity of the disability, with proven consistency and validity provided by the assessors consuming the time and cost that the society can afford. When a rigorous framework in disability assessment procedures is used, discretion is then considerably restricted. Limited discretion tends to produce more consistency and validity in the assessment but at the cost of ignoring the individual differences or exceptional circumstances. The disability approach among the categories of the disability assessment is both the oldest and the most commonly used strategy of disability assessment around the world. Most of the criteria of disability assessment in Korea belongs to this. The McBride's criteria for disability evaluations can be used to obtain the ratio of body impairment and work disability without spending too much time and is being applied in court. Nevertheless, there are many errors and controversies, and corrections are required. On the other hand, an improvement plan for a disability evaluation method in Korea is to supplement and use the McBride's disability assessment method, which is currently the most widely used. This review article describes the conception of disability and the assessment of disability, and introduces the models of the assessment of disability to determine if the application of the McBride's criteria of disability evaluation can be justified.

• 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.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.

• Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.66-75
• /
• 2004

Objectives: This study was intended to see the relationship between psychiatric consequences and injury severity following traffic accidents. Methods: We surveyed the 134 patients who were hospitalized from 1994 to 2003 at Chosun University Hospital for psychiatic disability evaluation following traffic accident. We reevaluate demographic factors from admission note. Psychiatric symptoms from mental status exam in medical records. Psychological tests(MMPI, BAI, BDI, K-WAIS) were done. Then we calculate the injury severity score and McBride's rate of disability due to diagnosis from emergency care hospital records. Their relationships were evaluated by statistical methods which were t-test and Pearson correlation analysis using SPSS-10. Results: When physical injury was not severe, suicidal attempt was more frequent and depression, hysteria, psychasthenia, psychopathic deviation subscales were high in MMPI. But when physical injury was severe, they have diffficulty in concentration, impaired orientation, and changed in IQ score. There was no relationship between physical injury severity and faking bad scales(F, Ds-r). Conclusion: We must not assume when physical injury was not severe, the severe sympomts are just faking for their benefit.