• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

소득이 늘어나고 의학수준이 높아지면서 전문 의료의 영역이 확대되었고, 의료기술 전반에 대한 국민의 신뢰가 높아지면서 비단 질병을 치료하는 경우 뿐 아니라 생활 속에서의 의료영역은 더욱 넓어지고 있는 추세이나 약물에 대한 남용이나 내성균의 등장으로 인해 여러 가지 문제점 들이 발생하는 것도 사실이다. 언론보도에서 접할 수 있는 병원에서의 감염사례 이외에도, 의료소송을 통하여 분쟁의 대상이 되는 병원감염의 사례는 적지 않은 것이 현실이다. 병원감염에 의한 의료소송에 있어서 병원 자체의 관리나 감독의 소홀을 물어 손해발생의 인과관계를 입증할 수 있다면 피해자의 보호의 수준이 한층 높아질 수 있을 것이다. 병원감염과 관련된 비교법적 고찰을 통해 이러한 문제에 대한 해결점을 찾아보고자 하였다. 특히 병원감염과 관련한 비교법적 검토로서 독일의 입법례는 진료계약을 민법상의 전형계약으로 정해 두고 있어 독일의 민법 규정을 살펴보는 것은 우리 법에게도 시사하는 바가 크다. 또한 프랑스의 특별법 '환자의 권리'를 향상시키고자 노력하였고 이에 따른 판례의 변화도 살펴 볼 수 있다. 마지막으로 미국의 판례상의 과실추정칙의 이론은 원고의 입증의 부담을 줄여주려는 시도로서 배심원제 하에서 적용될 수 있으나 주의의무 위반의 증거제시가 어렵고 침묵의 모의를 통하여 감정단의 증언조차 확보가 어려울 때 참고해 볼 수 있는 이론이 아닌가 생각한다. 본 논문은 병원감염의 의료소송과 관련 될 수 있는 문제들을 비교법적 측면에서 검토하여 증명책임의 완화와 관련하여 우리에게 어떤 시사점이 있는지 찾아보고자 하였다.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제19권4호
• /
• pp.139-147
• /
• 2014

의료분쟁은 전 국민을 대상으로 하는 의료보험사업의 시행과 더불어 건강에 대한 국민들의 관심이 증가하고 의료수요가 급격히 증가되는 가운데 필수 불가결하게 발생하는 문제이다. 분쟁의 대상은 대부분 의료인의 의료과오로 인한 형사적 처벌과 민사적 피해구제와 관련되는 것으로, 종래에는 합의에 의한 해결이 우선시 되었고 나아가 소송과 실력행사를 통해 해결하려 하였으나 명확한 기준과 관련 법제의 미비로 인하여 합리적이고 원활한 해결에 어려움이 있음을 부인할 수 없다. 이를 위하여 의료사고 처리와 의료분쟁을 분쟁당사자들 간의 자율적인 문제로 해결할 수 있도록 우여곡절 끝에 "의료사고 피해구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률"(이하 '의료분쟁조정법')은 2011년 4월 7일 제정되어 2012년 4월 8일 시행되었다. 이는 조정이나 중재로써 당사자 간의 갈등을 해결하려는 입법적인 취지가 있겠으나 의료분쟁조정법의 내용상 형사적, 민사적 관련 현행법과의 선결 되어야하는 문제와 더불어 헌법적 관점에서 고찰해야 할 검토 사항이 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 의료분쟁 조정법과 헌법상의 쟁점 및 형법적, 민법적 쟁점사항을 알아보고 이에 대한 해결과제를 모색하여 보다 안정적이고 효율적인 의료분쟁의 해결이 될 수 있도록 하는 계기가 마련되기를 기대해 본다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.85-116
• /
• 2013

Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, "K-MEDI" in abbr. herein-after, is established on Apr. 9, 2012 according to the law cited in the title above for the purpose of settling medical disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient manner. Two special professional organizations are established in K-MEDI, one of them is Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee(hereinafter referred to as the "Mediation Committee") and the other Medical Malpractice Appraisal Board(hereinaf-ter referred to as the "Appraisal Board"), the mission of the latter is to investigate the facts concerning the disputed medical conduct and to research as to and apprai-se whether the medical conduct was negligent and whether a causal relationship exists. Each panel organized in the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shall be comprised of five mediators or appraisers, including necessarily a judge or a prose-cutor respectively and any disputed case regardless of the scale, the importance or the complicacy shall be handled by a panel. As the system is not thought efficient or economic, the number of the members comprising a panel or total members com-prising the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shoud be adjusted, and the process shoud be versified, including the "Rapid Process," for instance. A petition for the mediation of a medical dispute shall be rejected if the respondent fails to notify K-MEDI of his/her intention to accede to the mediation within 14days from the day on which the petition for the mediation was served(Art. 27 Cl. 7). As the option of an arbitrary decision whether the mediation proceedings shall be commenced or not given to the respondent by the clause is thought unfair, making the process unstable, and moreover, diminishing the purpose of the system established by the law cited above for solving the medical disputes, the clause shoud be amended not to allow the respondent the option of such an arbitrary deci-sion. K-MEDI shall conduct the "Program for Compensation of Medical Accidents"(Art 46) according to which unavoidable injuries caused by the medical accidents in the cour-se of childbirth and the "Advances for Damages"(Art. 47) that are the compensating moneys paid to victims in medical malpractice cases who fail to receive money at all or partly from the operator or the professional of a public health or medical institution although he/she has a final and conclusive right to be paid by them. Some operators or professionals of such institutions claim that both the programs violate their fundamental rights assured by the constitution, and that it be a justifica-tion of refusal to accede to the mediation. As any of the programs needs not to be conducted by K-MEDI, it may be a proper solution to change the conductor of the programs to avoid the unproductive controversy.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한예방의학회 1999년도 제51차 추계 학술대회 연제집
• /
• pp.85-85
• /
• 1999

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한예방의학회 2002년도 제54차 추계 학술대회 연제집
• /
• pp.181-182
• /
• 2002

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한예방의학회 1996년도 제48차 추계 학술대회 연제집
• /
• pp.343-344
• /
• 1996

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한예방의학회 1998년도 제50차 추계 학술대회 연제집
• /
• pp.208-209
• /
• 1998

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.397-445
• /
• 2010

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.