• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.83-107
• /
• 2019

In order to resolve a dispute over a medical accident, the court is in the process of appraising the medical records for medical professionals to report their medical expertise or judgments using that knowledge. The consequences of expert opinion about a medical accident are only one of the methods of evidence as a reference. Therefore, in principle, the court should not be bound to the results, but the court, which is not a medical expert, can not completely rule out medical expert opinion as to whether there is medical malpractice and causality. Therefore, it can not be denied that the proportion of expert opinion of medical records in the dispute about medical accidents is high and it has an important influence on the judgement of the court. In this paper, we examine the significance and function of expert opinion of the medical accident, examine the appraising procedure of the medical records in the court and the appraising procedure of the medical accidents of the Korean medical dispute mediation arbitrator do. In addition, I would like to examine what kind of attitude is being taken in response to expert opinion of medical records in Korea to court, to examine the implications of the case of Japan as a foreign system, and to suggest improvement points in the expert opinion procedure of medical record filing in Korea. In particular, I would like to suggest improvements on issues such as the fairness of the expert opinion of medical records and the delays in litigation due to delays in the process of expert opinion.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2022

There were also many medical-related rulings in 2021, among which the rulings reviewed in this paper are as follows. The first relates to a case in which the medical record, which is the primary judgment data regarding the presence or absence of medical negligence, has been modified. The court judged whether there was negligence on the basis of the first written medical record without considering the contents of the medical record that was later modified. Next, the ruling on the case of asking for liability for damages for prescription of anti-obesity drugs recognized negligence related to prescription, but denied liability for property damage by denying a causal relationship, and recognized only alimony for violation of the duty of explanation. The a full-bench ruling on the scope of subrogation of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which subrogates the claims for compensation for medical expenses against the perpetrator of the patient, changed the existing precedent that had taken the 'deduction method after offsetting negligence' and judged it as 'the method of offsetting negligence after deduction'. In addition, in the ruling on whether or not there was negligence, the court was not bound by the medical record appraisal result. Lastly, in relation to the National Health Insurance Service's disposition of reimbursement for medical care benefit costs, we reviewed the ruling that discretion should be exercised even when a non-medical person makes a refund to a medical institution opened by a non-medical person. And we also reviewed the ruling that the scope of reimbursement for medical institutions jointly using facilities and manpower specifically should be determined.