• 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.