• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.33-67
• /
• 2020

The hospitals that are owned by non-medical personnel result when non-medical personnel with resources conspire with newly graduated medical doctors who cannot afford the enormous amount of capital required at the beginning of the establishment of a medical institution. Such hospitals, though they may have met the external requirements as medical institutions, disrupt the medical market as it should be centered by medical personnels, In addition, such hospitals are causing a huge social problem as it is illegally receiving and reducing various benefits such as medical care benefits and subsidies from the government, resulting in a significant financial leak in the national health insurance. The illegality of the opening of a non-medical personnel hospital is so high that it nullifies the contractual arrangement for the establishment, imposes criminal penalties on all persons involved in the establishment under the Korean Medical Law, and imposes administrative sanctions on medical personnel. In case the hospital was aware of the illegality of its opening, but had applied to receive medical care benefits from the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Act, such actions will result in the return of the benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Assistance Act, subject to the penalty for the crime of fraud, and aggravated punishment for specific economic crimes based on the amount of gain, as well as civil liability for torts. In this study, we will examine the current status of the regulations on the non-medical personnel hospital and present the basis for future legislative directions by looking at the legal regulations and the attitude of the precedents.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.281-313
• /
• 2016

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions In the past, there was a provision stipulating the same purpose. But because the Supreme Court interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if the medical treatment was not made at the additional medical instition which was opened in the another doctor,s license, multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions to another doctor's license just by the excuse of the business management and then did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, overtreatment, and commition treatment for more profits. So, the health rights of the people came to be infringed on. Accordingly, lawmakers amended the Medical Law for medical personnel not to open and to operate more than one medical institution. As the amended medical law prohibited a medical personnel to open multiple medical institution, some medical personnels insisted that the amended medical law is unconstitutional under which they could not be able to open and operate medical institutions on based on free investment and bring out the benefits of network hospitals. But the regulation to prohibit multiple institutions does not apply only to a medical personnel. Many other experts like lawyer and pharmacist can open only one office under such a restriction. If the regulation goes out of force, the procedure that multiple medical institutions should be opened and operated in the capacity as a medical corporation or a non-profit corporation does not have to be followed. And we should keep in mind that the permission for medical personels to open multiple medical institutions could lead virtually to commercial hospital. If in the nation with a very low rate of public medical service, If only a few medical personnels with capital own many medical institutions and operate commercially them, this could cause a falling-off in quality of medical service, ultimately infringe on the health rights and the life right of the people.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.143-174
• /
• 2019

Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the "justice of purpose" in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment, and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution's opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system's inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the 'minimum infringement'. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as 'balance of legal interests'. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court's decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people's interests.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.89-93
• /
• 2007

Contrast medium is a very useful tool for X-ray examinations. But contrast medium has some unavoidable adverse reactions. For those patients who have never received contrast medium before, it is impossible to predict whether they will suffer from certain kinds of adverse reactions. Thus, radiologists should use strategies to minimize adverse events and be prepared to promptly recognize and manage any reactions to the contrast media. If a radiologist commits medical malpractice, he will face civil responsibility. Medical malpractice means a tort or breach of contract that occurs in a medical setting. Medical malpractices happen, despite the efforts of hospital staff. Many courts have applied the traditional doctrine of respondeat superior in actions against organizations for injuries caused by their employees. It is a legal doctrine, which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment. A hospital is an organization for health purposes. An organization may be convicted of an offense committed by an employee of the organization acting in its behalf and within the scope of his office or employment. Organizational liability involves a wide variety of legal issues, including tort liability, wrongful employment practices, personal injury, breach of fiduciary duty, and so on. Many executive directors of organizations are aware of their personal and organizational risks of exposure to legal liabilities. The employer must have the right to control the physical conduct of the employee and must consent to receive the employee's services, while expecting some benefits from the services offered. Therefore, legal liability can be imposed for improper selection, assignment, training, and supervision of employees. In conclusion, the hospital itself has organizational liability for adverse reactions to the contrast medium.

• 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.