• 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.3 no.1
• /
• pp.248-269
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.215-234
• /
• 2000

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.39 no.4 s.383
• /
• pp.316-323
• /
• 2001

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.39 no.3 s.382
• /
• pp.215-228
• /
• 2001

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.39 no.2 s.259
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 2006

Background: The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of malpractice claims related to hemopneumothorax and to identify the causes and potential preventability of such claims. Material and Method: A retrospective study was performed by reviewing the records in the Lawnb website and Lx CD-rom: the records on closed malpractice claims involving hemopneumothorax were abstracted from the files available for analysis. The records were reviewed and were analysed to determine the etiology of hemopneumothorax, patient age, results of lawsuit and indemnity payment, underlying diseases, cause of death or complications, and the factors associated with a successful defense. Result: Seven closed claim involving hemopneumothorax were founded in the data for malpractice. Three claims were supreme court decision, one was a high court decision and three claims were district court decision. The most common cause of death was tension pneumothorax. Four of which resulted in indemnity payments. Conclusion: While malpractice claims involving hemopneumothorax were uncommon, they resulted in a high rate and amount of indemnity payments. Claims are more common in pediatric patients. In case of iatrogenic hemopneumothorax, post-procedural X-ray can improve patient outcome and is also associated with decreased indemnity risks. Informed consent is also important.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.311-338
• /
• 2008

This paper aims to introduce an overview of the regime of expert witness in the medical malpractice litigation, and to provide a plan of how to make it improved. In regard with medical expert witness, several problems, such as time-consuming procedure, non-neural and unclear opinion without reasons provided, have been pointed out for several years. Lack of skill of the court and plaintiff/defender to question the expert is one of many cause to lead to the above problems. What is questioned to the expert? Because expert witness is used in determining probability of negligence, questions to the expert should be selected on the grounds of whether or not to obtain opinions or facts sufficient to let the judge infer negligence in view of the theory of proof burden established by the Supreme Court. In addition, to avoid non-neutral and unclear opinion, it is necessary to question the expert clearly, specifically and scientifically.

• 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.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.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

Due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits, it is difficult for medical consumers, who are weak in getting information when it comes to health care problem, to secure all information inside the hospital. Even if you are confident about the hospital infection, it is true that people have difficult to obtain medical testimony by expert. It is seen as no easy task to testify to the malpractice of colleagues who work in the same field not only in our country but also abroad, when a doctor gives negative testimony to another doctor in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Although few health care providers will be motivated to take medical care from the outset, testimony or statements from a medical practitioner can have a significant impact on the outcome of a lawsuit, as it is impossible for the patient to control or be aware of the whole process of medical conduct, especially in the event of a hospital infection and the victim. If the hospital can prove the causality of damages caused by negligence of the employees or supervision of the hospital itself in a medical suit caused by the infection, the level of protection of the victim could be raised further. We sought to find a solution to these problems by looking at the provisions of other laws related to hospital infection. In particular, as the comparative legal review regarding hospital infection, Germany's legislative precedent sets a medical contract as a typical civil law contract, so it is thought that looking at German civil law regulations also has implications for Korean law. We also tried to improve the French Special Act 'rights of patients' and we can look at the consequent changes in court cases. Finally, the content of the U.S. case's and the theory of 'the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur' in relation to it show that doctors and hospitals have been forced to shift the burden of proof through this theory. This paper tried to find out the implications of mitigating the burden of proof by reviewing various issues that might be related to medical litigation of hospital infection from a comparative point of view.