• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2013

After several bills for the reasonable medical dispute resolution had been proposed for over twenty years, "Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation" was eventually enacted on April 7, 2011 and came into effect from April 8, 2012. This study evaluates the achievements and results of the past year, suggesting the future improvements or tasks. The main issue of Act on Medical Dispute Mediation is Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Therefore, the success of the Act depends on the outcomes of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Although the Act has been enforced for only one year, this paper examines the outcomes of the Agency with limited materials for its development. Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency was established for rapid, fair, and effective medical dispute resolution. Thus, the evaluation of the performances of the Agency is based on the 1) rapidness, 2) fairness, and 3) effectiveness of the dispute resolution. To sum up, the system earned positive evaluations as for the rapidness and fairness, but some problems were indicated with regard to the effectiveness. As the system of medical dispute mediation and arbitration in Korea has no parallel in the world, other countries show many interests in it. The rapid and fair medical dispute resolution is of benefit in both patients and medical institutes and decreases social costs. As the Act had a difficult passage through Parliament, it should be maintained and improved continuously.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.43-83
• /
• 2013

Medical treatment has great potential for conflict. Even the best-trained doctors can commit medical malpractice that result in continuing physical or mental disabilities or even death. Medical conflicts have been increasing over years. The medical conflicts between patient and medical professionals that result from medical professionals' mistakes are often fueled by a violation on the pretext of the injuries form medical malpractice and can lead to litigation. The litigation usually cost a lot of money and time. The extension of the litigation period as well as expensive cost and lack of medical knowledge placing a great burden on patients. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is more efficient than litigation. In 1988, the medical dispute mediation system has been introduces as the Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation by Korean Medical Association came into effect after 23 years of enactment efforts. Medical Dispute Mediation Act(hereinafter referred to as the "MDMA") has finally entered into force from 8 April 2012. The purpose of the MDMA is to promptly and fairly redress injuries caused by medical malpractice and create a stable environment for medical services of public health or medical professionals by providing for matters regarding the mediation and arbitration of medical disputes(MDMA ${\S}1$). In an effort to secure the fair, speedy and inexpensive resolution of every malpractice case, the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency(hereinafter referred to as the "K-MEDI") was established. Following the MDMA, the K-MEDI shall endeavor to ensure the medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings are conducted in a prompt, fair, and efficient manner, and patients and medical professionals shall attend proceedings in good faith with mutual trust and understanding when they participate in medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.163-187
• /
• 2011

On March 11, 2011, the Korea National Assembly finally passed the bill on the Damage Relief on the Medical Malpractice and Mediation for Medical Dispute. One of the features of this Act is including "The Subrogation Payment System for Damage (abbreviated SPSD)". This System is that 'Korean Medical Dispute Mediation-Arbitration Board' pays the damages, instead of the health care provider, for the patient who isn't paid damages by the health care provider despite of the Mediation or ruling. The purpose of this study is to search the problems and make improvement on SPSD. This System was introduced extreamly to the patients in order to induce them to the mediation. However,there remains several problems. In this articles, I have examined thoroughly the legal issues on SPSD. There are legal issues about the methods and ratio of the financial burden. In this connection, wide discretionary authority has been granted to administrative agencies specifically. On this account, this System clearly contains elements of a violation against the Constitutional Law. Moreover, this System can be broadly applied to the case of court ruling or the Korea Consumer Agency's mediation. But these measures go against the aim of legislation that the medical dispute can be resolved through the mediation or arbitration by this Act. In the end, these problems must be revised through the additional discussion.

• 보건의료산업학회지
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.107-117
• /
• 2010

In this paper, the researcher looked into major issues in the "Act (Draft) on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation, etc." which was proposed by the Health & Welfare Committee, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, and which was pending with the Legislation & Judiciary Committee. Then the researcher pointed out worrisome problems therein and presented suggestion" to improve problematic situations. First of all, the researcher examined the following items which are major points in the aforementioned Act: 1) Establishment of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Center, 2) Procedures for mediation and arbitration of medical disputes, 3) Establishment of Medical Injury Compensation Association, 4) Introduction of proxy payment for damages, 5) Compensation for no-fault medical accidents, 6) A system concerned with special cases on criminal punishment. Next, the researcher closely reviewed the following possible issues: 1) Limit of arbitrary mediation, 2) Postponement of the system concerned with special case on criminal punishment, 3) Examination of reasons for rejection, 4) Function and role of the Appraisal department, 5) A possibility of being reduced to an evidence collection procedure for lawsuit, 6) A possibility of no-fault compensation rather than injury compensation, 7) Operational issues related proxy payment for damages. Lastly, the researcher presented suggestions on how to improve each problematic issue.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.91-122
• /
• 2014

For a variety of reasons, the number of medical disputes is continuously rising. Due to the intrinsic qualities of medical treatments, one would find it more apt to subject medical disputes to general conflict resolution procedures rather than to once-for-all decisions under legal suits. To address the increasing medical disputes with greater professionalism and efficiency, the Medical Disputes Mediation Act was enacted and a medical dispute mediation system put in place, while drawbacks have been blamed to both. The current mediation procedures require the respondent's agreement as a disclosure requirement. A reasonable improvement to this would be to amend the regulation of agreement supposition, or to enforce procedural participation only to public health facilities managed by the national or regional government. Furthermore, small claims cases of 20 million KRW or less in claim may be considered for conciliation-prepositive principle. The concentration on small claim medical disputes is a phenomenon that can be addressed by carrying out maximum authentication commissions or similar measures, one of the solutions by enhancing the public trust in the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. The proper management of medical authentication teams is one way to address the existing problems in the authentication system. For this, the number of team members shall be increased under more flexible authentication procedures. All indemnity resources for medical accidents of force majeure must be borne by the Government, for it is the body principally responsible for social compensation. Placing this cost on the establisher of the subject medical facility holds the possibility of violating fundamental rights. While the costs for subrogation payment system for damages may be borne by the healthcare facility establisher, a deposit-based system must be created for cases in which the facility shuts down, without holding the responsibility for accident cause. Such change to a deposit-based system will evade the controversies of unconstitutionality, etc.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.185-198
• /
• 2020

In the event of a medical conflict in South Korea, civil lawsuits can be very complicated, time-consuming, and costly. Under the Medical Conflict Conciliation Act, the mediation system has expanded its function to coordinate disputes between individuals and medical institutions in a more efficient manner prior to litigation. Currently, conflict mediation organizations and legal systems are established in each sector, and the Healthcare Dispute Settlement Commission will also play an important role in the public sector. In this study, the characteristics of the evaluation system of the Korea Institute of Medical Conflict Arbitration are examined; and, by looking at the case of medical examinations, it is proposed to show the mediation system and the manner and role of the examinations. Medical expertise is a very important area of the qualitative standards and expertise of participants because the participants must play a role in medical consultation and appraisal in connection with medical experts.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.255-288
• /
• 2015

의료사고는 환자의 생명, 건강과 직결되는 경우가 많기 때문에 사전에 예방하는 것이 바람직하다. 그러나 의료사고가 발생한 경우에는 당사자 간의 감정이 첨예하게 대립되기 전에 조정을 통해 신속하고도 원만하게 해결할 필요가 있다. 한국소비자원은 신속 공정하고 효율적인 해결을 목적으로 의료분쟁 조정업무를 수행하고 있고, 이는 동일한 업무를 수행하고 있는 한국의료분쟁조정중재원 역시 마찬가지이다. 그런데 한국소비자원과 의료분쟁조정중재원은 업무중복 및 그로 인한 비효율을 이유로 통폐합에 대한 논의가 끊임없이 제기되어 오고 있지만, 소비자의 선택권 보장, 경쟁을 통한 상호 발전을 위해 두 기구가 공존하는 것이 바람직하다. 그러므로 소비자원이 조정중재원과 공정한 경쟁을 할 수 있도록 법적, 제도적 뒷받침을 해주어야 한다. 그것은 소비자원을 위 한 것이 아니라 궁극적으로 소비자를 위한 것이다.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.139-168
• /
• 2016

독일은 의료분쟁에 대하여 주의사협회를 중심으로 설립된 두 가지 방식의 대체적 분쟁해결방식을 두고 있는데, 첫째는 하노버를 중심으로 한 북독일 지역의 의료조정원이고, 다른 하나는 노트라인 지역을 중심으로 한 감정위원회 방식이다. 두 조직은 의사협회를 중심으로 구성되어 있지만, 북독일의료조정원은 법조인과 의사가 각각 1인 포함된 조정위원회를 구성하고, 감정위원회는 법조인 1인을 감정위원장으로 임명하고 그 이하에 4명의 의사 감정위원을 둠으로써, 조정위원 또는 감정위원들이 가진 고도의 의학적 지식에 법률적 중립성을 부여하려고 노력하고 있다. 현재 우리나라에서 의료사고 피해 구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률에 의하여 설립된 한국의료분쟁조정중재원에 의한 대체적 분쟁 해결 방식은 감정과 조정 중재라는 두 단계를 거쳐야 하기 때문에 독일의 감정위원회 절차와 조정위원회 절차가 참고가 될 수 있다. 의료 분쟁 조정제도가 의료인 중심으로 운영되면, 환자 측으로부터 불신을 받을 것이지만, 현재 우리의 제도는 의사측이 의료중재원 절차에서 소외될 수 있다는 우려 역시 주요한 문제점으로 나타나고 있다. 또한 법 개정에 의하여 사망자와 중상자에 대한 조정 자동개시가 도입되면서, 의료분쟁조정중재원의 중립성과 효율적 운영이 중요한 문제점이 되었다. 독일의 조정원과 감정위원회의 구성에 비추어 보면, 조정원 구성은 법조인과 의사가 동등하게 참여하여 구성하는 것과 감정위원회 구성은 위원장을 법조인이 하고, 감정 위원들을 의사들로 구성하는 것과 같이 전문가들의 협조와 견제를 고려하고 있다. 현재 의료분쟁 조정법에서 조정과 감정은 하나의 절차처럼 운영되고 있는데, 적절한 협력을 고려하면서 의료인 중심의 감정 분야와 법조인 중심의 조정 분야를 독립적으로 운영 발전할 필요가 있다.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.280-291
• /
• 2021

Background: Based on the fact that the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency is a public institution established by social demands for medical disputes, this study reviews the publicness of public organization and discusses its policy implications. Methods: Through Moore's strategic triangle, which consists of legitimacy and support, public value and operational capacity, the process of creating public value is examined. For the analysis, case studies were conducted using related literature data from 2012, when the agency was established, to the present. Results: As a result of the analysis, first, the related law examined in the operational capability has been revised dozens of times, but the revised law has its own contradictions and limitations. The human resource system is also being improved, but there is a problem with the fairness and reliability of the arbitration process, especially due to the limitations of the appraiser system. Second, in terms of legitimacy and support, a regional gap occurred despite efforts to improve accessibility through the expansion of the organization. And the arbitration agency failed to reconcile conflicts caused by stakeholders' perception of each other as a trade-off relationship. Third, the public value result shows that, despite many explicit (statistical) achievements, citizens' use of the past dispute resolution means (litigation) has not decreased. Likewise, the perception of value makers (citizens) is important for creating public value as an invisible result, but it has not yet been formally investigated, so the performance can not be recognized. Conclusion: While the organization's efforts for continuous change and improvement are encouraging, it is not perceived as a better means of resolving disputes and improving quality of services. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the institutional design centered on value creators.