• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.61-72
• /
• 2017

In this study, the Commission proposed the mitigation of remedies by improving the role of medical disputes and preventing medical disputes. Medical disputes include a comprehensive description of medical malpractice, medical negligence, medical malpractice, and medical malpractice. Medical negligence refers to the neglect of medical care due to careless medical care in the treatment of patients, leading to patient injury and death. An inappropriate response in the process of international treatment could result in international trials and a decline in international credibility. In cases where medical disputes arise, health care is strictly necessary to determine the truth or absence of medical malpractice, and these expertise and experience are usually provided by emotion. With the neutral and objective emotions provided fairly and impartially, medical care expertise and experience can be fair, and the medical disputes can be resolved peacefully if the parties are trustworthy. The Health Care Dispute Mediation Committee should focus on enhancing the professionalism, objectivity, and reliability of medical care.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• 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?

• 의료법학
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

피고의 잘못된 임플란트 시술로 인하여 원고는 임플란트 보철물 도재 파절 및 역미소선, 치주염 등의 심각한 손상을 입은 사건에서 피고는 원고에게 불법행위 또는 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상으로 향후 치료비와 위자료를 지급하라는 판결이 나왔다. 이번 대상판결에서는 치과치료에 관한 사안으로서 일반적인 의료과오소송과 마찬가지로 고도의 전문적 지식을 필요로 하는 분야로서 비전문가인 일반인으로서는 치과의사가 의료행위 과정에서 주의의무 위반이 있었는지 여부나 환자에게 발생한 손해 사이의 인과관계가 있었는지 여부를 밝혀내기 극히 어려우므로 증명책임을 경감하는 것으로 구성한 것이다. 대상판결의 사안에서처럼 수술 도중이나 수술 후에 환자에게 중한 결과의 원인이 된 증상이 발생한 경우에 그 증상의 발생에 관하여 의료상의 과실 이외의 다른 원인이 있다고 보기 어려운 간접사실들이 증명된 경우에는 그와 같은 증상이 의료상의 과실에 기한 것이라고 추정할 수 있다고 판시하였다. 특히 대상판결에서는 일반적인 수술적 치료의 사안이 아닌 임플란트의 시술의 사례로서 수단채무로서 치과진료의 의료과오소송에서 치과의사의 과실에 관한 환자의 입증책임을 소위 '사실상 추정론'에 근거하여 대폭 경감함으로써 의료기술의 발달과 증가하는 현대 의료과오소송에서 세계적 입법추세인 입증책임의 전환에 더욱 가까이 접근하였다는 점에서 큰 의미를 부여할 수 있다. 이러한 점은 대상판결에서 치과의사의 '과실'의 판단에 있어 "그 증상이나 발생에 관하여 의료상의 과실 이외의 다른 원인이 있다고 보기 어려운 간접사실이 증명되면 그와 같은 증상이 의료상의 과실에 기한 것이라고 추정할 수 있다"고 판시한 점에서 명확히 확인된다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.311-338
• /
• 2008

This paper aims to introduce an overview of the regime of expert witness in the medical malpractice litigation, and to provide a plan of how to make it improved. In regard with medical expert witness, several problems, such as time-consuming procedure, non-neural and unclear opinion without reasons provided, have been pointed out for several years. Lack of skill of the court and plaintiff/defender to question the expert is one of many cause to lead to the above problems. What is questioned to the expert? Because expert witness is used in determining probability of negligence, questions to the expert should be selected on the grounds of whether or not to obtain opinions or facts sufficient to let the judge infer negligence in view of the theory of proof burden established by the Supreme Court. In addition, to avoid non-neutral and unclear opinion, it is necessary to question the expert clearly, specifically and scientifically.

• 보험의학회지
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.22-23
• /
• 2010

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.303-354
• /
• 2013

In 2012, the major jurisdictions regarding medical cases caused the controversial issues towards medical and legal fields by getting the judgments from the Supreme Court, which admitted the exceptional admissibility on discretionary grant. By regarding the serial negligence of medical organizations as a separate tort, the sentences which made up irrationality, were spoken by the court. As a result, if the treatment was made, which did not follow the entered matters in medical documents attached, the court announced the jurisdiction that presumes the negligence, which provided the evidence of negligence; on the other hand, this gave had the burden to medical branch to take great care for medicinal treatment. To be applicable for the Principle of Trust, the doctors have to give and take the necessary information for the treatment process and symptom decisions, which also commented in the court. Thus, this case made it difficult to apply the Principle of Trust and considered all the conditions as tough ones, which eventually induced lesser faults for patients' care. Moreover, the court confirmed that the medical ads sending the emails to the members belong to the internet portal sites, are not the inducing behavior by considering that the actions are only medical ads. Furthermore, in the case of Namsu Kim, the court's interpretation was rather limited the definition for medical practice that announced limited Erweiterung der Strafbarkeit cases by lower courts. As a consequence, it is very interesting whether the Supreme Court may change their position and concerning the duty of explanation, the trend to expand the contents and scopes for the duty of explanation continues by admitting instruction explanation obligation and all the compensations and so on.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.123-158
• /
• 2011

The Korea health care system has been divided into Western and Oriental (Korea traditional) medicine since 1951. In accordance with dualistic medical system, there are many conflict cases between medical doctors and oriental medical doctors. Meanwhile, there were much discussions about the meaning and criteria of medical malpractice(negligence). Especially, many cases have been built up about the criteria of medical malpractice through lawsuits. But, comparatively, there's few the medical malpractice case of the oriental medical doctors. According to a recent ruling of the Supreme Court, the legal principles of medical doctor's malpractice case are equally applied to the criteria of the oriental medical doctor's malpractice case. But there are much considerations in addition to these principles for the dualistic medical system and academic distinctiveness. This study is intended to review the dualistic medical system, the criterion of medical malpractice, and analysis this issues. To make long story short, under our dualistic medical system, judging the medical and oriental malpractice should be considered relatively. However, it makes sense that we want medical doctor or oriental medical doctor to demand the reinforced negligence to restrict the unnecessary discretion. If there is lack of evidence-based medicine or the rationality suspected, the health care providers must give enough proof.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2014

The court handed down meaningful rulings related to medical sectors in 2013. This paper presents the ruling that the care workers could be the performance assistants of the care-giving service although the duties of care worker are not included in the liability stipulated in the medical contract signed with the hospital for reason of clear distinction of duties between care workers and nurses within the hospital in connection with the contract which was entered into between the hospital and patients. In relation to negligence and causal relationship, the court recognized medical negligence associated with the failure to detect the brain tumor due to the negligent interpretation of MRI findings while rejecting the causal relationship with consequential cerebral hemorrhage. The court also recognized negligence based on the observation on the grounds of inadequate medical records in a case involving the hypoxic brain damage caused during the cosmetic surgery. In terms of the scope of compensation for damages, this paper presents the ruling that the compensation should be estimated based on causal relationship only in case the breach of the 'obligation of explanation' is recognized, however rejecting the reparation for de factor property damages in the form of compensation, and the ruling that the lawsuit could be instituted in case that the damages exceeded the agreed scope despite the agreement that the hospital would not be held responsible for any aftereffects of surgery from the standpoint of lawsuit, along with the ruling that recognized the daily net income by reflecting the unique circumstances faced by individual students of Korean National Police University and artists of Western painting. Many rulings were handed down with respect to medical certificate, prescription, etc., in 2013. This paper introduced the ruling which mentioned the scope of medical certificate, the ruling that related to whether the diagnosis over the phone at the issuance of prescription could constitute the direct diagnosis of patient, along with the ruling that required the medical certificate to be generated in the name of doctor who diagnosed the patients, and the ruling which proclaimed that it would constitute the breach of Medical Act if the prescription was issued to the patients who were not diagnosed. Moreover, this paper also introduced the ruling that related to whether the National Health Insurance Service could make claim to the hospitals for the reimbursement of the health insurance money paid to pharmacies based on the prescription in the event that the hospitals provided prescription of drugs to outpatients in violation of the laws and regulations.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.287-307
• /
• 2009

A person is injured in car accident caused by his/her slight negligence except he / she causes accident by his / her willfulness or gross negligence. Because the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called "Corporation") shall not provide any insurance benefit "when he has intentionally or through gross negligence caused a criminal conduct or intentionally contributed to the occurrence of an accident" referred to in Article 48 (1) 1 of the National Health Insurance Act. So, if he / she is insured by his / her own bodily injury coverage, he / she can be compensated for his / her medical expenses. The injured have the rights to file either National Health Insurance claim and Automobile Insurance claim but there is no clear and definite adjustment clause. The claim disputes between National Health Insurance (hereinafter called "NHI") and Automobile Insurance (hereinafter called "AI") in the own bodily injury coverage makes some problems. Firstly, there are some differences in co-payments which he / she chooses between NHI and AI. Profit per a patient is higher in the NHI than in the AI. Secondly, it can provoke criticism that people shall unnecessarily pay double contributions. Lastly, it can raise moral hazards. For example, if he / she can cover the compensations when the insured receives the compensations from his / her insurer, the Corporation can be claimed by medical care institution payment of the health care benefit costs. In conclusion, first of all, to improve the national health and preserve the insured's rights the Corporation shall keep notice these facts.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2024

본 연구는 경막외 혈종 발생과 관련한 문헌 및 척추 수술 후 경과관찰 상의 과실에 관한 판결 중 요추 MRI 검사 여부에 대해 판단한 하급심 판결에 관해 검토함으로써 척추 수술 후 환자에 대한 지속적이고 세밀한 경과관찰의 중요성을 확인했다. '수술 후 MRI 검사나 협진을 게을리한 사례', '수술 후 통증 및 증상 호소에도 MRI 검사를 지체한 사례', '시술 후 신경학적 증상 발현에도 바로 귀가 조치한 사례'에서는 경과관찰 상의 과실이 인정되었다. '증상에 대해 조치하여 후유증상 발생에 과실이 인정되지 않은 사례', '검사 시행에 대한 의사의 재량범위를 인정한 사례'에서는 경과관찰 상의 과실이 인정되지 않았다. 본 연구가 척추 수술을 받은 환자에 대해 지속적인 세밀한 경과관찰이 필요하다는 것과 특히 새로운 신경학적 증상을 보이는 경우 신속한 MRI 검사 및 진단과 수술적 처치 내지 전원 조치의 중요성에 대한 인식을 높임으로써 척추 수술 후 경과관찰과 관련한 의료사고 및 분쟁의 예방에 도움이 되기를 바란다.