• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.30 no.3 s.274
• /
• pp.207-211
• /
• 1992

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.289-310
• /
• 2000

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.13-51
• /
• 2004

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.165-194
• /
• 2014

Der Vertrag zwischen dem Arzt und seinem Patienten wird als Auftrag im Sinne des ${\S}680$ KBGB qualifiziert. Dem Arzt erwachsen innerhalb dieses Behandlungsvertrages zahlreiche Pflichten, von denen ein gro${\ss}$er Teil durch Richterrecht geschaffen wurde. Den Arzt treffen z.B. Behandlungspflicht, Informationspflicht ${\ddot{u}}$ber die Behandlung, Aufkl${\ddot{a}}$rungspflicht ${\ddot{u}}$ber einwilligungspflichtige Umst$\ddot{a}$nde, Dokumentationspflicht, Schweigepflicht. Der Arzt ist nach Rechtsprechung und Literatur verpflichtet, den Patienten ${\ddot{u}}$ber s${\ddot{a}}$mtliche f${\ddot{u}}$r die Einwilligung wesentlichen Umst${\ddot{a}}$nde aufzukl${\ddot{a}}$ren, insbesondere ${\ddot{u}}$ber Art, Umfang, Durchf${\ddot{u}}$hrung, zu erwartende Folgen und spezifische Risiken der Ma${\ss}$nahme, die Notwendigkeit, Dringlichkeit und Eignung der Ma${\ss}$nahme zur Diagnose oder zur Therapie und uber die Erfolgsaussichten der Ma${\ss}$nahme im Hinblick auf die Diagnose oder Therapie. Mu${\ss}$ der Arzt den Patienten auf einen eigenen Behandlungsfehler hinweisen, wenn f$\ddot{u}$r ihnen Umst${\ddot{a}}$nde erkennbar sind, die die Annahme eines Behandlungsfehlers begr${\ddot{u}}$nden. Allgemeine Offenbarungspflichr bei ${\ddot{a}}$rztlichen Behandlungsfehlern wird bisher nicht diskutiert. Nach derzietigem Recht besteht keine allgemeine Offenbarungspflicht des Arztes, den Patienten unaufgefordert ${\ddot{u}}$ber einen eigenen Behandlungsfehler hinzuweisen. Aber wie im ${\S}630c$ BGB, sind f${\ddot{u}}$r den Behandelnden Umst${\ddot{a}}$nde erkennbar, die die Annahme eines Behandlungsfehlers begr${\ddot{u}}$nden, hat er den Patienten ${\ddot{u}}$ber diese auf Nachfrage oder zur Abwendung gesundheitlicher Gefahren zu informieren.

• 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.15 no.2
• /
• pp.195-223
• /
• 2014

Nurses are medical care providers most closely associated with the national health. Their works are subdivided and specialized, and it is such a factor making nurse's role more important, and with the appearance of specialized nurses, they have secured a position as an independent medical care provider. As the domain of nurse's service becomes broader, there are more accidents and disputes related to nurses. However, there are not many studies conducted on such problems, and even when medical disputes take place related to nurses, the court does not make consistent judgments as a matter of fact. Besides, as the ambiguity of nurse's range of service and the lack of nursing workforce work as a factor causing nurse's medical malpractice, more legal discussions and studies are required to seek proper solutions to such problems. Thus, as a plan to clarify legal issues likely to occur due to nurse's medical practice, this study classified nurse's work into medical assistance practice and other jobs based on their own independent judgments, and proposed establishing concrete regulations on the range of their work, while reviewing common problems extracted from precedents related nurse's medical malpractice. Moreover, while examining Japanese precedents related to the Act of Medical Service Personnel, Nurses and Midwives, which is the sole act of nurses in Japan, this study reviewed the necessity of revising the present nurse-related regulations in Medical Service Act, or enacting a sole act of nurses.

• 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.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.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.10 no.2
• /
• pp.85-113
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.