• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.323-386
• /
• 2006

A combination of information technology and medical care has given rise to a new type of medicine, i.e., telemedicine. Broadly defined, telemedicine is the transfer of electronic medical data from one location to another. Both at home and abroad, telemedicine has come to success in establishing appropriate equipment and solutions for such non-conventional medicine. Sooner or later, telemedicine is believed to find itself as one of the universal treatments. In order to facilitate the full-fledged development of telemedicine, a number of legal and institutional problems have to be settled. In Korea, the Medical Act was amended to include such provisions as telemedicine, electronic medical records, electronic prescriptions, etc. and the Act came into force on March 31, 2002. Telemedicine is in common with the conventional medicine in that a physician treats a patient. However, telemedicine is basically differentiated in the followings: - The offer and acceptance of treatment and medication are usually made on-line; - Telemedicine is inherently dangerous because a physician cannot meet face-to-face with a patient; and - Joint and several liability is borne by all the physicians involved in a telemedical consultation. As a result, telemedicine is vulnerable in nature to medical malpractice. Accordingly, there must be some new theories and arguments in the formation of contract and torts. The discussion on the civil liability covers the above-mentioned issues, and would give an insight or guidelines in the concerted operation of provisions with respect to telemedicine. This study delves into the civil liability of physicians involved in telemedical consultations and treatments based upon the conventional malpractice theory.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.57-81
• /
• 2016

It can determine the outcome of the lawsuit whether or not there is a causality between the medical malpractice of a physician and the patient's injury when the patient is filing a lawsuit against the physician in order to pursue civil liability for a medical accident. In medical malpractice lawsuits, it is not easy to judge causality between different civil cases because of the special nature of medical care. Also, information such as medical records is concentrated on doctors and the medical knowledge of the patient is relatively insufficient compared with the doctor. Therefore, it is recognized through medical malpractice lawsuits that the burden of proof of the causality burdened by the plaintiff patient is relaxed. In this paper, I examine the legal theory on how to recognize causality in medical civil liability and then concern the attitude of the case in Korea, which is divided into the types of the causality - such as the case of general medical practice, explanation duty, no causality with medical malpractice.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.295-329
• /
• 2012

A medical malpractice case requires special legal protection, considering its characteristics, such as seriousness and long term effects of its damages, medical information asymmetry between practitioners and patients, and difficulties in realization of liability. Taking the points above into consideration, Medical Malpractice Arbitration Act of 2012(MAA) has legislative intent to protect the rights of the injured from medical malpractice, while protecting the stability of medical practice by providing arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution. However, constitutional review is required for one new scheme of compensation for medical injuries during delivery, which is implemented in MAA of 2012, especially with regard to freedom to exercise occupation, property, equality under the Constitution. Two important aspects are 1. according to the law, absolute liability applies to compensation for damages during delivery without negligence of practitioners; and 2. the practitioner bears some portion of the cost, 30% in the law above. This article aims to analyze this new institution in various aspects of the Constitution, and, as a result, it does not comply with constitutional criteria.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.63-89
• /
• 2014

In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.85-113
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 2016

Medical dispute means the dispute between the hospital and the patient due to a medical accident. In general, medical accidents must be in accordance with the terms that are used in the medical dispute adjustment method stated in Article 2 (definition). In relation to this, there is a need to discuss an efficient operation scheme for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in medical disputes. In addition, it is necessary to look at issues of civil liability and criminal liability. In particular, in the consumer dispute arbitration committee, there is a case to make a "decision not to adjust" in aggressive intervention in the process of conflict resolution. The medical staff, on the basis of its "decision," can use this as a proven material for civil and criminal cases. This is rather upon the determination of the consumer council as a typical side effect to defend the user's perspective. This is the "decision" as was expressed from an order, "not adjusted." It is also determined to be easy and clearly timely. In the medical litigation, it is requesting the burden of proof of a patient's cause-and-effect relationship with the doctors committing negligence and medical malpractice. This seems to require the promotion of legislation in the direction to reduce future cases. It is determined that the burden of proof of medical accidents must be improved. The institution receiving the medical accident should prevent a closure report. Further, it is necessary to limit the transition to a franchise point. In this paper, we understand the problems of the current medical dispute resolution system, trying to establish a medical dispute resolution system desirable through an efficient alternative. In addition, it wants help in the protection and realization in medical consumers' and patients' rights. The relevant authorities will take advantage of these measures. After all, this could contribute to the system for a smooth resolution of a medical dispute.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.62-62
• /
• 2016

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.219-263
• /
• 2011

"Wrongful conception" is a medical malpractice claim in which the plaintiff is the parent of a normal, healthy infant whose conception was unplanned and unwanted. Medical malpractice in wrongful conception can be the result of a failure to provide informed consent to a patient, failure to properly perform a surgery, or a physician's negligent handling of a patient's problems. In the concrete, wrongful conception cases fall into two categories; those involving pre-conception negligence, such as a failed contraceptive, sterilization or failing of the controlling of embryo-number on the IVF, and those involving post-conception negligence, such as a failure to diagnose a pregnancy or to perform an abortion procedure. In addition, Medical malpractice can be the result of a failure to provide informed consent to a patient. When bad results occur by medical malpractice or failure to provide informed consent to a patient, the range of recovery of damages is decided by a traditional civil liability law. However the calculation of damages for wrongful conception is not easy because the high value of life is included in that case. So many courts opinions in foreign country and Seoul High Court decision in 1996 allow damages for the pregnancy, birthing process and sterilization costs, but refuses to allow damages for child rearing expenses. As to the range of recovery of damages for wrongful conception, one approach says that to allow damages in a suit such as this would mean that the physician would have to pay for the fun, joy and affection which plaintiff will have in the rearing and educating of the plaintiff's baby. To allow such damages would be against the dignity of the baby based on article 10 of the Constitution. However another approach says that damages are recoverable for all expenses related to child birth as well as for child rearing costs. Because the damages that the parents should bear a burden to the tort damage done is not a baby itself but child rearing costs. In other words, although the baby is healthy or not, economic burden of the parents can not be disregard. And denial of compensation for costs of child rearing may invalidate the role of liability law, grant the physician with a exemption certificate of liability. As a result, the medical field of procreation can be easily isolated from a liability of reparation. Therefore, on the liability law like the other medical malpractice action, parents who became pregnant or gave a birth by physician, wrongfully performed sterilization operation, etc. should be compensated for all damages relevant to unplanned and unwanted conception or birth as well as costs of child rearing.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.89-93
• /
• 2007

Contrast medium is a very useful tool for X-ray examinations. But contrast medium has some unavoidable adverse reactions. For those patients who have never received contrast medium before, it is impossible to predict whether they will suffer from certain kinds of adverse reactions. Thus, radiologists should use strategies to minimize adverse events and be prepared to promptly recognize and manage any reactions to the contrast media. If a radiologist commits medical malpractice, he will face civil responsibility. Medical malpractice means a tort or breach of contract that occurs in a medical setting. Medical malpractices happen, despite the efforts of hospital staff. Many courts have applied the traditional doctrine of respondeat superior in actions against organizations for injuries caused by their employees. It is a legal doctrine, which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment. A hospital is an organization for health purposes. An organization may be convicted of an offense committed by an employee of the organization acting in its behalf and within the scope of his office or employment. Organizational liability involves a wide variety of legal issues, including tort liability, wrongful employment practices, personal injury, breach of fiduciary duty, and so on. Many executive directors of organizations are aware of their personal and organizational risks of exposure to legal liabilities. The employer must have the right to control the physical conduct of the employee and must consent to receive the employee's services, while expecting some benefits from the services offered. Therefore, legal liability can be imposed for improper selection, assignment, training, and supervision of employees. In conclusion, the hospital itself has organizational liability for adverse reactions to the contrast medium.