• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.57-127
• /
• 2008

In medical malpractice lawsuits, negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Thus, the essence of negligence is a breach of obligations to be attentive, and the breach of obligations to be is negligence. However, whether negligence is or not depends on time, place, litigation forms and the judge since the meaning of negligence is wavering on the basis of abstract and normative judgment. In this thesis, what is medical negligence, a breach of obligations of attention for a doctor in medical malpractice lawsuits, would be it further enacted that doctors have the responsibility to protect the patients as a subordinate duty due to a principle of faith and sincerity besides the main duty for medical contract-performance since the suit is a litigation form to be based on responsibilities of experts, especially doctors, though having factors that are non-contractual as a trait for medical treatment. Further on the concept, when the plaintiff asserts and proves a specific fact from the recent moderation of the burden of proof about medical malpractices, whether the court should find a true bill in medical malpractice actually or not has been discussed.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

의료과오 민사소송의 주된 쟁점은, 과실, 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계이다. 진료 상 과실이 증명된 경우 인과관계 추정과 관련하여 종래 대법원 1995. 2. 10. 선고93다52402 판결이 있으나, 위 판결 문언 상 요건을 충족하는 사안은 찾기 어렵고, 그럼에도 실무는 위 판결을 인용하면서 인과관계를 추정하는 경우가 많아 위 판결 문언과 정합성이 없다는 비판이 꾸준히 제기되었다. 대법원은 대상 민사판결에서, 민사소송에서 진료 상 과실이 증명된 경우 인과관계 추정에 관한 법리를 정비하여 새롭게 제시하였다. 이에 의하면, 환자 측이 의료행위 당시 임상의학 분야에서 실천되고 있는 의료수준에서 통상의 의료인에게 요구되는 주의의무의 위반 즉 진료 상 과실로 평가되는 행위의 존재를 증명하고, 그 과실이 환자 측의 손해를 발생시킬 개연성이 있다는 점을 증명한 경우에는, 진료 상 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계를 추정하여 인과관계 증명책임을 완화한다. 여기서 손해 발생의 개연성은 자연과학적, 의학적 측면에서 의심이 없을 정도로 증명될 필요는 없으나, 해당 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계를 인정하는 것이 의학적 원리 등에 부합하지 않거나 해당 과실이 손해를 발생시킬 막연한 가능성이 있는 정도에 그치는 경우에는 증명되었다고 볼 수 없다. 한편 진료 상 과실과 손해 사이의 인과관계가 추정되는 경우에도 의료행위를 한 측에서는 환자 측의 손해가 진료 상 과실로 인하여 발생한 것이 아니라는 것을 증명하여 추정을 번복시킬 수 있다. 한편 민사사건과 달리 형사사건에서는 '합리적 의심이 없을 정도의 증명'이 기준이고, 인과관계 추정 법리가 적용되지 않는다. 이에 따라 동일한 의료사고에 관하여 같은 날 동일한 재판부에서 선고된 업무상과실치사 형사사건에서는 진료 상 과실과 사망 사이 인과관계에 대한 증명 부족을 이유로 무죄 취지로 파기환송하였다. 대상 형사판결은, 의료과오 관련 형사 사건에서 '업무상 과실'이 인정되더라도 '인과관계'에 대한 확실한 증명이 부족하면 유죄로 판단하지 말라는 취지의 판결이다.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• pp.80-114
• /
• 1992

Current compensation schemes for medical malpractice based on negligence is absolutely malfunctioning in Korea. Focussing on the reform of present tort systems for resolving medical malpractice disputes, this paper discusses the alternative models of the Social Relief Schemes for Medical Malpractice (SRSMM). Alternative models of SRSMM should fundamentally be based on either negligence or nofalult compensation principle. On the foundation of the previous relief principle, the SRSMM should be equupped with three major components-the preventio/reduction of the sharp increasing medical malpractice, the effective and efficient resolving process for malpractice disputes and the proper social financing scheme for compensation. The paper deals with pros and cons of the possible alternative models for reform centering on the three major components of the scheme. As conclusions, administrative arbitration machinaries and a compulsory fund for compensating the injured under the negligence principle are proposed to resolve the current problems Korea has faced.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.285-317
• /
• 2008

To accept the doctor's professional negligence in the medical malpractice, the mistakes, by which the doctor did not foresee the production of the results in spite of the possibility of foresight and did not avoid the production of the results in spite of the possibility of avoidance, must be considered, and to decide the presence of the doctor's professional negligence, the standard must be the attention standard of general-common doctor engaged in the same business and the same function, and the medical enviornments, the conditions, the extraordinary nature of medical behavior, and etc should be considered by the general level of medical science at the time of accident. This principlel must be applied to the medical malpractice case occurred being on duty without exception. But, because of the extraordinary nature of duty work, it is difficult for any doctor to do one's best technical practice by making all diagnosis, medical treatment with all the equipment on the same plane as the ordinary times. That cannot be also expected for any doctor to do one's best technical practice in the terms of a social idea. From this point of view looking into The Precedent case related to Medical-service person being on duty sentenced by The Supreme Court, unlike the general medical malpractice case, the presence of the professional negligence in the medical malpractice occurred being on duty seems to be decided with more consideration on the general level of medical science, the medical enviornments and the conditions, particularities of medical practice at the time of accident. Especially, the extraordinary nature of medical behavior of the medical service person being on duty in the emergency room seems to be admitted compared to that of the medical service person being on duty in ward.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.209-235
• /
• 2010

According to the development of medical technology, new medical treatments have been dramatically increased as an inevitable consequence, however, it is not easy for medical workers to learn the knowledge that is necessary for new medical treatments and their additions in the medical services. Therefore, it could not be helped increasing the guidelines for applying new medical treatments, and then, the problem would come out whether to attribute the medical negligence to the doctors who did not follow the guidelines when the patient became worse because of his non-compliance. Nevertheless, there is no document to review the problem mentioned above and also no definite precedents. Thus, the civil lawful character and obligation of guidelines on the lawsuit against the medical default have been examined in this studies. The medical negligence is defined as usual doctors violate the care obligation which is demanded for them to follow when they treat patients under the proper medical standard in those days. It is resonable to assume that the matter of guidelines is to decide the level of the care obligation, that means the care which is required of the rational doctors under same circumstances, and in general, the experts' testimonies should be needed in this case. In addition, the issue comes out whether the guidelines can be the standard of the judgement of the medical negligence. Finally, I suppose, the evaluation of the issue depends on who makes the guidelines, what materials are based on, and also depends on whether there is another guidelines in the same disease, what the purpose of guidelines is to save the medical costs or to realize the appropriate medical services, in addition, it depends on how often renew the guidelines, and how wide is the usage of guidelines.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.91-123
• /
• 2012

Doctors and patients for the purpose of healing and treatment of disease through the contract will make a relationship. Doctors perform the medical practice for the state and illness of patient. Given that the patient did not cooperate in the doctor's medical practice, it is difficult to achieve the goal of disease healing. If the patient don't cooperate the medical care, and it is linked with a doctor's medical malpractice, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation is considered with negligence on the part of patients. However, this negligence should be limited to obvious cases that the patient's behavior is unreasonable although the doctor provides medical information to patients and induced the patient's response. Also, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation must result in adjusting the indemnification via a setoff of fault except the cases having causal relationship between doctor's fault and malpractice.

• 대한예방한의학회지
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.105-115
• /
• 2014

Objective : Traditional medicine (TM) has been playing its role in national healthcare system and it is taken as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) from the viewpoint of modern Western medicine. In the UK, not a few practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) are working as CAM practitioners using herbal medicine and acupuncture therapy. Cases of dispute in the TCM practice are not rare these days because patients who take TCM service are increasing by year. Method : In the UK, dispute cases of the Traditional Medicine of East Asia can be found these days, however, it is hard to find a reported court case. A medical dispute case of TCM will be analysed to see the legal management and the resolving principle in the alternative medicine practice with some cases of Korean Medicine (KM) being discussed. Results : The usual pattern of clinical negligence can be discussed from the points of a duty of care, breach of that duty by negligence, and the harm to the patient from that breach of duty. The judge followed this procedure In this case to discuss the claims. The department of health proposed to introduce regulation to provide the reasonable quality in TCM practice, and the governmental system would be essential to regulate both the TCM practice and practitioners. Conclusion : The dispute case of traditional Chinese herbal medicine (TCHM) practice is important for the clinical negligence in TCHM practice. Judging the negligence of a TCHM practitioner involves the conventional negligence principle in tort law, and the TCHM practitioners are required to keep up with the up-to-date information on the related medical specialty. The reasoning is almost the same as that shown in the court case of Korea. The TCHM practice in the UK needs to be under the regulation by the government. The standard of care we expect of a TCHM practitioner is a further matter to discuss from the healthcare and social viewpoints.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.179-218
• /
• 2006

To succeed the claim of medical negligence, the plaintiff should establish the medical profession's fault, and the causation between the fault and damages. The faults are judged on lege artis, which is based on expert witness. However, judges often infer the faults and causations from circumstantial evidences and patients' injuries. This presumptions depend on the law of nature(Erfahrungsgesetz). The law of nature can explain the typical development of the event. If the circumstantial evidences were in accordance with that, the faults and causations would be able to be recognized by the judges. Therefore the standards of comparison such as lege artis or the law of nature play an important role for medical negligence liabilities to be imputed to doctors or hospitals. The factual elements necessary to assume the fault is similar to those of the causation, for the concept of the fault is correlated with that of the causation. The elements include the temporal and spatial proximity between damages and defendant's medical treatments, no existence of other causations, the probability of bed results developed by the medical treatments, and so on. These enable the fault and causation to be assumed at the same times.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2022

2021년에도 의료와 관련된 많은 판결들이 있었는데, 그 중 본 논문에서 검토한 판결들은 다음과 같다. 먼저 진료기록 부실기재 및 변조 등과 주의의무위반 관련 판결은 의료과실 유무 등에 관한 일차적 판단자료인 진료기록이 사후에 수정된 사례에 관한 것으로 그 수정내용 및 수정시기에 비추어 사후에 수정된 진료기록 내용은 고려하지 않고 최초 작성된 진료기록을 토대로 과실 유무 판단을 하였다. 다음으로 비만치료약 처방 등에 대한 손해배상책임을 묻는 사례에 관한 판결은 처방과 관련한 과실을 인정하였으나 상당인과관계를 부정하여 재산상 손해배상책임을 부정하고, 설명의무위반에 따른 위자료만 인정하였다. 또한, 환자의 가해자에 대한 기왕치료비 손해배상채권을 대위하는 국민건강보험공단의 대위범위에 관한 전원합의체판결은 '과실상계 후 공제방식'을 취해온 기존 판례를 변경하여 '공제 후 과실상계방식'으로 대위 범위를 판단하여 피해자 보호를 도모하였다. 그리고 과실 유무에 관해 진료기록감정회신결과와 달리 판단한 판결은 과실유무 판단을 함에 있어 진료기록감정결과에 구속되는 것은 아니고 자유심증에 따라 판단한다는 입장에 따라 규범적으로 판단하였다. 마지막으로 국민건강보험공단의 요양급여비용환수처분과 관련해서는 비의료인이 개설한 의료기관에 대한 환수처분을 함에 있어서도 재량권을 행사해야 한다는 판결과 시설 및 인력을 공동이용한 의료기관에 대한 환수처분의 경우 그 환수범위를 세부적으로 판단해야 한다는 판결을 검토하였다.

• 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.