• 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
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• 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.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제1권1호
• /
• pp.72-94
• /
• 1991

The number of disputes between physicians and patients caused by medical malpractice are showing a sharp increasing over the past several years. The disputes on medical malpractice may be resolved either in court or by direct negotiation between both sides concerned. There are no special acts relating to the civil or penal liability of the physicians in Korea. The medical disputes are decided merely through legal technicalities and without reference to actual medical practice. The current system which does not compensate injured patients adequately or equitably leads to taking a long time consuming for dispute resolution processes. The things make worsed, the problem is due to not being of insurance system or a proper funds for compensation. This research proposes a outline of new and comprehensive alternative for these problems and failure of conventional resolution of medical disputes. So far, we have learned lessons from the excperiencies of resolving medical malpractice disputes of Japan and the United States. The proposal first calls for an administrative arbitration and pretrial screening panels as a condition precedent to trial. The proposal also includes to facilitate with the funds for compensating the injured.

• 대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.103-117
• /
• 1995

Recently the suits for medical malpractice are gradually increasing in this country. The main purpose of this study is to excavate the most suitable theories about civil liabilities on medical malpractice by radiological technologist. To solve the above-mentioned problems in medical malpractice, I have proceeded to make a survey of traditional theories and tried to exvacate the most suitable theories for our medical circumstances among those theories. Both domestic and foreign relevant professional literatures and legal cases were investigated in this study. Several important findings of this study are as follows. First, the nature of legal interrelationship between radiological technologist and physician(or the representative of a hospital) is to define the content of employment. But in the eye of medical law, the interrelationship between radiological technologist and physician is written that radiological technologist should be directed by physician. Second, the nature of legal interrlationship between patient and physician(or the representative of a hospital) is to define the content of legal obligation of physician(or the representative of a hospital), and radiological technoligst execute his obligation as proxy for physician. Therefore, patient can not clame any legal right to radiological technologist. Third, radiological technologist has the obligation of Due Care in medical practice. Fourth, on the medical malpractice by radiological technologist the civil liability can be treated as either tortious liability or contractual liability, and physician(or the representative of hospital) take the responsibility for the damage compensation. In this case, physician has the right of indemnity to radiological technologist. But it should be dinied or extremely limited.

• The Korean Journal of Pain
• /
• 제28권4호
• /
• pp.254-264
• /
• 2015

Background: Pain medicine often requires medico-legal involvement, even though diagnosis and treatments have improved considerably. Multiple guidelines for pain physicians contain many recommendations regarding interventional treatment. Unfortunately, no definite treatment guidelines exist because there is no complete consensus among individual guidelines. Pain intervention procedures are widely practiced and highly associated with adverse events and complications. However, a comprehensive, systemic review of medical-dispute cases (MDCs) in Korea has not yet been reported. The purpose of this article is to analyze the frequency and type of medical dispute activity undertaken by pain specialists in Korea. Methods: Data on medical disputes cases were collected through the Korea Medical Association mutual aid and through a private medical malpractice liability insurance company. Data regarding the frequency and type of MDCs, along with brief case descriptions, were obtained. Results: Pain in the lumbar region made up a major proportion of MDCs and compensation costs. Infection, nerve injury, and diagnosis related cases were the most major contents of MDCs. Only a small proportion of cases involved patient death or unconsciousness, but compensation costs were the highest. Conclusions: More systemic guidelines and recommendations on interventional pain management are needed, especially those focused on medico-legal cases. Complications arising from pain management procedures and treatments may be avoided by physicians who have the required knowledge and expertise regarding anatomy and pain intervention procedures and know how to recognize procedural aberrations as soon as they occur.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• 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?

• 한국병원경영학회지
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2006

According to the available data, in these days, the number of medical accidents and disputes have significantly increased since 1990 in Korea. From this aspect, a variety of approaches and efforts to solve these problems is needed before it is too late. This study intended to identify the thoughts of patients who are directly connected with medical accidents and disputes and then to consider reasonable settlement methods of the increasing disputes. For achieving the purpose of this study, the self-administerd questionnaire was conducted with 450 out-patients who visited three university hospitals, five small and medium-sized hospitals, and ten clinics in Seoul from June 13 to 17, 2005. Incomplete questionnaires were omitted and 410 respondents(91%) were included for the analysis of this study. Each section of the survey was composed of six categories such as the recognition of malpractice, a compensation system about no-fault medical accidents, the recognition of the judgement of medical accidents in court, reasonable settlement of medical accidents, reasons of lawsuit, and the need of the medical dispute settlement organization. The major results of this study were as follows. First, more than half of the respondents, 51.9 percent, worry about malpractice. And many respondents think malpractice causes their symptoms to persist or become worse, and also some respondents think that the doctor's prescription changed too frequently. Second, as for a compensation system about no-fault medical accident, 55.7 percent of the respondents insist that a proper compensation for suffering patients or their families should be provided. And also as for the responsibility of compensation, respondents think joint compensation of both the medical institution and the government is needed foremost, followed by the medical insurance company and finally by the medical institution. The government as well as the related institutions should take responsibility for malpractice accidents for which the doctor is not responsible. Third, as for the acknowledgment of medical accident judgements by the court, 32.8 percent of respondents think that it is best to compromise with a medical institution, followed by lawsuit(26.2%), the assistance of civil organization(23.2%), and a powerful physical protest(7.6%). Fourth, as for the lawsuit of medical accidents, 62.9 percent of respondents think that patients and their families would be in a disadvantageous position in relation to medical institutions and doctors mentioning the lack of professional medical and lawful knowledge, experience and know-how as the reason. So many people have given up appeals owing to the difficulties involved in defending themselves through evidence. Fifth, about a half share of the respondents indicated that the medical institution's neglect of the responsibility of medical accidents is one of the most important reasons of lawsuit. And next respondents mentioned the lack of the medical dispute settlement organization and a general distrust of medical institutions and doctors. Sixth, a majority of respondents consented to the introduction of the need of the medical dispute settlement organization, And about a half of the respondents mentioned a readiness to accept the mediation of the organization, but the rest did not express a clear opinion. It seems that conflict among the parties concerned have existed in relation to the medical dispute settlement organization and related legislation for many years. But as this study has shown, the needs of the medical dispute settlement organization is in desperate demand. Therefore, more negotiation efforts from all interest groups should be considered for the birth of the medical dispute settlement organization and related legislation.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.139-171
• /
• 2018

「의료사고 피해구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률」(이하 '의료분쟁조정법'이라 한다)에서는 보건의료인이 충분한 주의의무를 다하였음에도 불구하고 분만 중 불가항력적으로 발생한 의료사고에 대하여 국가가 예산의 범위 안에서 그 피해자에게 보상하도록 하고 있다(의료분쟁조정법 제46조). 지금까지 의료사고 피해자가 소송을 통해서만 피해회복을 기대할 수 있었던 것에 비한다면 획기적인 법률이라 할 수 있다. 그런데, 이러한 의료사고보상사업에 드는 비용의 100분의 30은 보건의료기관개설자 중 분만 실적이 있는 자가 부담하고 있는 바(의료분쟁조정법 시행령 제21조), 이 분담금 부과 조항이 분만 과정에서의 산모·신생아 사망 등의 사고가 의사의 과실이 없이 불가항력적으로 발생했음에도, 의사들에게 책임을 묻는 것은 아닌지 문제가 되어 왔다. 그러나 최근 헌법재판소에서 분담금 부과와 관련한 의료분쟁조정법법 제46조 제3항 중 '보건의료기관개설자의 범위' 및 '보상재원의 분담비율' 부분에 대하여 합헌 결정을 내린 바 있다(헌법재판소 2018. 4. 26. 선고 2015헌가13 결정, 이하 '이 사건 결정'이라 한다). 이 사건 결정에서는 법률유보원칙 및 포괄위임입법금지원칙에 의하여만 판단하였으나, 본고에서는 실질적인 판단도 가미하였다. 이 사건 분담금운 과잉금지원칙에 비추어 보더라도 보건의료기관개설자들의 재산권을 침해하지 않는 점을 논증하였다. 불가항력 의료보상제도의 분담금 부과가 민사책임의 중요 원칙인 과실책임원칙에 거스르는 측면이 존재한다. 그러나 의료사고보상사업은 의료사고 피해자를 위한 국가정책으로 합리성이 있으며, 동시에 의료분쟁의 조기종결 효과로 의료계 역시 이익을 얻는 측면이 분명 존재한다. 분담금의 납부를 통한 보상재원의 확충은 이러한 의료사고보상제도를 빠르게 정착시킴으로서 분만과정에서 발생한 의료사고 피해자의 고통과 오해를 경감시키고 의료인의 안정적 진료환경 구축에 큰 도움이 될 것이다.

• 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.