• IE interfaces
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.126-132
• /
• 2002

The objective of this study is to provide guidelines for expert witness in product liability lawsuits. The expert testimony is one of the powerful methods to mitigate the burden of the proof in product liability litigations. However, it has been seldomly accepted as a reliable evidence by trial judges because the expert's testimony has sometimes turned out to be illogical and unreliable. In order for the expert testimony to be admittable in the court, the expert should have a thorough understanding of his/her role as an expert witness and follow scientific methodology whose soundness has been generally accepted by both industries and academy.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.223-251
• /
• 2021

Statement analysis is a technique that examines the credibility of a statement by scientifically analyzing problems and psychological characteristics that appear in the content of the statement. The statement analysis report is prepared, submitted, and used for legal judgments when there is a suspicion of sexual abuse for children(under 13 years of age) and persons with disabilities since it is usually difficult to secure physical evidence nor eyewitnesses. However, the criteria for evaluating the quality of a statement analysis report or testimony are not available in Korea. Although forensic experts and professional organizations in North America and Europe are providing recommendations and guidelines for preparing forensic assessment reports, qualitative analysis research studies for forensic reports revealed a number of problems such as missing or poorly described essential information and lack of logical connection between evaluation results and forensic opinions. Therefore, forensic evaluation guidelines and forensic reports submitted to the courts in the United States, as well as the Structured Quality assessment of eXpert testimony (SQX-12) developed in Sweden were examined to suggest the Korean version of quality evaluation criteria for statement analysis report and testimony. This criteria can be used to improve effectiveness of forensic reports within criminal justice system and used as a guideline to assess the quality forensic reports or expert testimony prepared by experts. However, this criteria do not guarantee the reliability of the statement itself.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.115-139
• /
• 2012

Civil proceedings, surveyed results and medical expenses that are evidenced by expert witness are just one of the methods of proof. Since a judge makes decision by synthesizing all evidences on a concerned case, thus the judgement would be different from that of expert witness. It is not rational for medical institutions, of which priorities are medical treatment, to give priority to disability decision. However, despite of its importance, medical institutions less recognize about the necessity of procedural stability and predictability in expert valuation. It is necessary to identify actual problems and investigate rational alternatives to acquire fairness in valuation procedures and accuracy in calculating future medical expenses. Therefore, this research explores the problems and realities of evaluation process in medical treatments, and then discuss the alternatives of written expert opinion and estimation of future medical expenses.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.181-207
• /
• 2008

With recent emphasis on evidence based medicine, clinical practice guidelines are seen as a potential mechanism by which unify various managerial and professional approaches to improving the quality of care. The development process of guidelines has been the subject of much research. and it is need translating the medical evidence of research into a clinical practice guidelines. the gathered evidence needs to be interpreted into a clinical, public health, policy, or payment context. The term 'clinical practice guidelines' can evoke a diverse range of responses from healthcare personnel. Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly used in patient management but some clinicians are not familiar with their origin or appropriate applications. Understanding the limitations as well as benefits of CPG could enable clinicians to have clearer view of the place of guidelines in every practice. In the context of increasing complaints and litigation in healthcare, the legal implications of clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance. Clinical practice guidelines could, in theory, influence the manner in which the courts establish negligence by suggesting the doctor breached the duty of care by failing to provide the required standard of medical care. In several studies, the CPGs were relevent to and played a pivotal role in the proof of negligence. Much depends on the quality of guidelines and the tools developed and the authoritativeness of a guideline. Recently, there are several opinions the court also should review the validity and reliability of expert testimony including medical evidence. and widespread use of guidelines in malpractice lawsuit could lead the physicians to greater compliance with guidelines in the long term. In conclusion, Health care reformers, physicians as well as guidelines developers should understand that guidelines have both medical and legal aspects as a double-edges sword. so clinicians, legal representatives and decision-makers should not defer unduly to guidelines.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2021

This study analyzed the use of expert reports in the investigations and trials of cases of sexual violence against people with intellectual disabilities. A total of 670 alleged sexual assault cases against victims with intellectual disabilities were analyzed. Results showed that 97.5% of the cases included at least one expert report. In most cases(91%), the expert reports of statement validity assessment were included. Additionally, doctor's note (41.1%) from obstetricians and Psychiatrists, intermediary reports(36%), and expert witnesses(psychologists') reports (9.5%) were included. In 80 cases (44.4%) of the 180 cases in which a victim' statement credibility was in question during the trial, judges cited the expert's reports of statement validity assessment as the basis for the judgment on the reliability of the victims' accusation. The frequency of citing the report was higher when the victim was under the age of 13, or when the defendant was found guilty. Regrading the report content, the evaluations of criteria-based content analysis(CBCA) was most frequently cited, while the victim's psychological status, cognitive limitation, as well as possibile contamination of victim's account, were also mentioned in the ruling statements. Results showed agreement between experts' statement validity assessments and judges' determinations in 79 cases out of the 80 cases Finally, this study discussed ways to utilize expert options.

• 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.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.61 no.4
• /
• pp.474-477
• /
• 2018

Objective : From November 30, 2016, the Korean Government carried the revised Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Act into effect. Mediation will start automatically without agreements of the defendant, when the outcome of the patient was death, coma more than a month or severe disability. Cerebral aneurysm has a definite risk of bad outcome, especially in the worst condition. Any surgical intervention to this lesion has its own high risk of complications. Recently, Seoul central district court decided 50% responsibility of the doctors who made a rupture of the aneurysm during coiling (2015Ga-Dan5243104). We reviewed judicial precedents related to cerebral aneurysms in lawsuit using a web search. Methods : We searched judicial precedents at a web search of the Supreme Court, using the key words, "cerebral aneurysm". Results : There were 15 precedents, six from the Supreme Court, seven from the High Court, and two from district courts. Seven precedents were related to the causation analysis, such as work-relationship. Five precedents were malpractice suits related bad results or complications. Remaining three precedents were related to the insurance payment. In five malpractice precedents, two precedents of the Supreme Court reversed former two precedents of the High Court. Conclusion : Judicial precedents on the cerebral aneurysm included not only malpractice suits, but also causation analysis or insurance payment. Attention to these subjects is needed. We also need education of the independent medical examination. To avoid medical disputes, shared decision making seems to be useful, especially in cases of high risk condition or procedures.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2020

The March 29, 2016, amendment to the Civil Procedure Act introduced changes to the appraisal procedures, including new obligations for appraisers, changes in the modes of appraiser testimony, and questioning of appraisers through video conferencing, with all seemingly aimed at procedurally addressing the issues with appraisal in the context of court proceedings. The changes introduced by the amendment also affect the appraisal procedures for copyrights. In light of the above, this article examines how the amendment to the Civil Procedure Act affects the appraisal procedures for copyrights. Specific issues covered by this paper include: appointment of additional appraisers, prohibition of delegated appraisal, operation of the multiple appraisal system, disclosure of participating experts, proximity of the appraiser system, and congruence of areas of expertise.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.39-65
• /
• 2022

There are two aspects of clinical practice guidelines that act as non-legal control before medical practice and as legal control standards after medical practice. The essential purpose of clinical practice guidelines is the former, but the latter action cannot be excluded. The clinical practice guidelines are a means of linking law and medical care. The negative perception of clinical practice guidelines that medical professionals' autonomy can be violated by the enactment of clinical practice guidelines is an excessive negative evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Rather, judicial judgment based on clinical practice guidelines plays a role in respecting the autonomy of medical professionals. In other words, the clinical practice guidelines suppress legal regulations on medical care as much as possible and are based on doctors' professional ethics and self-discipline, and patient awareness and cooperation. In order to establish an ideal relationship of cooperation between doctors and patients, 'medical ethics' must be incorporated as a legal means. Clinical practice guidelines are the most appropriate means for incorporating such medical ethics into legal procedures. The lawyer solves the case with a legal syllogism that establishes a norm and applies facts to it to conclude. For the resolution of medical disputes, Clinical practice guidelines are used to establish norms that doctors should perform for specific diseases, and conclusions are drawn by applying the established norms to specific medical practices. When it is not easy to apply the established norms to specific medical practices, medical judgments by experts, such as emotions, expert testimony, and explanations by expert members, are used. As such, the Law respects the autonomy of medical care even in the establishment of norms and the application of norms. In particular, Clinical practice guidelines prepared independently by the medical community are referred to in establishing norms, which are the prerequisites for legal syllogism. This shows that doctors participate in the formation of precedents and contribute to the formation of norms. The use of clinical practice guidelines in trials is respect and consideration for the autonomy of medical care. Although there may be an aspect in which the autonomy of individual doctors is limited by clinical practice guidelines, it should be considered that the autonomy of doctors as a group is respected. In this way, the clinical practice guidelines play a role in protecting the autonomy of the "medical" group from the logic of the "law."