• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2007

It is a general principle that the plaintiff takes burden of proof about negligence and causation in a civil compensation litigation. And it is the same in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Korean courts have made diverse efforts to mitigate the plaintiff's duty to prove in medical malpractice lawsuits under the name of justice and impartiality. One of those theoretical attempt is 'presumption of causation'. The Supreme Court, since 1995, has developed a new logic for the theory of 'presumption of causation' which is characterized by a phrase "layman's common sense". The Court presumes the defendant's negligence and causation when the plaintiff alleges and proves the facts which can be pointed out and expressed by a layman with common sense. And if the defendant fails to prove that the result was caused by other fact than own medical activities, the defendant shall be defeated. I realize that this theory has problem for justice and impartiality. I would say that two fators should be considered and added to this logic. First,are defendant's acts generally belonging to gross negligence which would cause that kind of bad result? Second, is it recognized that there would be the causation generally and statistically between the cause and the result?

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.323-386
• /
• 2006

A combination of information technology and medical care has given rise to a new type of medicine, i.e., telemedicine. Broadly defined, telemedicine is the transfer of electronic medical data from one location to another. Both at home and abroad, telemedicine has come to success in establishing appropriate equipment and solutions for such non-conventional medicine. Sooner or later, telemedicine is believed to find itself as one of the universal treatments. In order to facilitate the full-fledged development of telemedicine, a number of legal and institutional problems have to be settled. In Korea, the Medical Act was amended to include such provisions as telemedicine, electronic medical records, electronic prescriptions, etc. and the Act came into force on March 31, 2002. Telemedicine is in common with the conventional medicine in that a physician treats a patient. However, telemedicine is basically differentiated in the followings: - The offer and acceptance of treatment and medication are usually made on-line; - Telemedicine is inherently dangerous because a physician cannot meet face-to-face with a patient; and - Joint and several liability is borne by all the physicians involved in a telemedical consultation. As a result, telemedicine is vulnerable in nature to medical malpractice. Accordingly, there must be some new theories and arguments in the formation of contract and torts. The discussion on the civil liability covers the above-mentioned issues, and would give an insight or guidelines in the concerted operation of provisions with respect to telemedicine. This study delves into the civil liability of physicians involved in telemedical consultations and treatments based upon the conventional malpractice theory.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.61-105
• /
• 2007

The Hospitalized Acquired Infection is defined as the case where the hidden infection or not found at the time of hospitalization occurs during the hospitalized period or, within 30 days to those who performed the surgery operation and then left the hospital. About 2/3 of the Hospitalized Acquired Infection are found as having the internal infection cases that are occurred by the patients' own virus due to the lowered immune system, while about 1/3 are found as having the external infection. The latter 1/3 of the external infection cases can be prevented through the infection management. And in case the new Hospitalized Acquired Infection case occur to the patient who was treated in the hospital, its responsibility issue will matter. As well in the disputes over the Hospitalized Acquired Infection cases, the cause-result relation between the damages and the medical staff's fault and as to whether there is failure of the medical staff or not. personnel should be proved in the medical-malpractice cases. In addition, the difficulties in proving such as expertise, secrecy propensity, discrete propensity and incompleteness will be considered to ease the burden of patient side's proving. Probability theory, Fact based assumption theory, Most adequate plaintiff preassumption or Expressed evidence theories are being discussed as the theories of eased burden of proof. In the result of gathering and reviewing Korea's precedent cases concerning the Hospitalized Acquired Infection, there are only a few accumulated prece dent cases and the attitude of the court also are also not consistent. Therefore, there are the precedents where the cause-result relation and the failure are immediately assumed when (1) timely proximity between the medical behavior and malpractice results, (2) proximity between the medical behavior-applied parts and the malpractice results-found parts, and (3) lack of other causes are separately evidenced; while the are the precedents only when 'the existence of the medical faults based on the common sense' is separately evidenced. It was found that the former and latter cases coexisted. The former is considered as based on the theory that separates the fault and cause-result relation not to consider them together, or regarded as based on the doubts that assumes the medical staff's neglect even though the Hospitalized Acquired Infection might be completely prevented by their efforts. However, the modern medical technology has the limitation as far as the prevention of the Hospitalized Acquired Infection. In conclusion, the assumption of the cause-result relation and that of the fault should be separately reviewed. Therefore, the latter precedents are considered as more reasonable, in the point the faulty behavior may be proved based on the common sense.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.62-62
• /
• 2016

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.89-115
• /
• 2022

In this article, the Medical Act, the Emergency Medical Act, Act on remedies for injuries from medical malpractice and mediation of medical disputes were reviewed and interpreted based on the Civil Act. In the health and medical field, there are various laws that reflect changes in the medical field due to the development of health and medical technology, and their revision is very frequent. And the legislation has become very complicated. They contradict each other or require interpretation. In this situation, a person must take considerable care not to violate the law. In many cases, specific guidelines or authoritative interpretation are required to apply the law. Even guidelines and authoritative interpretations often conflict with civil law. In this article, errors in the legal text related to health care were found. In addition, it found a case that contradicts the civil law perspective in interpretation. Thus, it was confirmed that civil legal thinking was necessary to legislate, interpret, and apply health care-related laws.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.83-122
• /
• 2014

Compared with medical cases and health care law from other countries there has been a lot of progress on medical law, especially on medical precedents in Korea. However, in recent years, medical precedents tend to reflect a realistic position of health care providers, rather than normative position of the victim. The burden of proof to prove strict liability is given to patients in civil law suits by courts, patients generally has the burden of proof. The rate of claims to prove the negligence of medical malpractice is falling significantly. Even if the error is acknowledged, it is not enough to get right to be relief for patients by increasing limitations of liability or ratio of patient's own negligence. Compensation fee is included in medical fees and risk of medical malpractice actions contributes ultimately to a health care consumer. In conclusion, author represents a major the new upgrade of above mentioned problem. By advising that court should assess actively for the perspective of victim for medical negligence we will be able to exercise remedies of patients' rights and to prevent recurring medical accidents and also contribute to medical advances.

• Journal of the Korean hospital association
• /
• v.21 no.9 s.197
• /
• pp.21-33
• /
• 1992

이 논문은 서울대 대학원 박사학위 논문이다.

• Journal of the Korean hospital association
• /
• v.22 no.3 s.202
• /
• pp.55-61
• /
• 1993