• 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
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.57-81
• /
• 2016

환자가 의사를 상대로 의료사고에 대한 민사책임을 추궁하기 위하여 소송을 제기하게 될 때, 의사의 의료과실과 환자에게 발생한 손해 사이에 인과관계가 존재하는지 여부는 소송의 승패를 좌우한다. 의료과실소송에서는 의료가 지니는 특수성으로 인하여 다른 민사사건과 달리 인과관계의 존부의 판단이 쉽지 않다. 또한 의료과실소송에서는 진료기록을 비롯한 정보가 의사에게 집중되어 있고, 환자의 의료지식은 의사에 비하여 상대적으로 부족하다. 따라서 원고인 환자가 부담하는 인과관계에 관한 증명책임의 완화가 판례를 통하여 인정되고 있다. 이에 본고에서는 우리나라에서 의료민사책임에서 인과관계를 어떻게 인정하는지에 관한 법리를 살펴보고자 한다. 그리고 우리나라 판례의 태도를 인과관계가 문제되는 유형별 - 일반적 의료행위의 경우, 설명의무의 경우, 의료과실과의 인과관계가 없는 경우 - 로 나누어 고찰하기로 한다.

• 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.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한예방의학회 1999년도 제51차 추계 학술대회 연제집
• /
• pp.85-85
• /
• 1999

• 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?

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• 제43권5호
• /
• pp.402-410
• /
• 2016

Background In an increasing number of lawsuits doctors lose, despite providing preoperative patient education, because of failure to prove informed consent. We analyzed judicial precedents associated with insufficient informed consent to identify judicial factors and trends related to aesthetic surgery medical litigation. Methods We collected data from civil trials between 1995 and 2015 that were related to aesthetic surgery and resulted in findings of insufficient informed consent. Based on these data, we analyzed the lawsuits, including the distribution of surgeries, dissatisfactions, litigation expenses, and relationship to informed consent. Results Cases were found involving the following types of surgery: facial rejuvenation (38 cases), facial contouring surgery (27 cases), mammoplasty (16 cases), blepharoplasty (29 cases), rhinoplasty (21 cases), body-contouring surgery (15 cases), and breast reconstruction (2 cases). Common reasons for postoperative dissatisfaction were deformities (22%), scars (17%), asymmetry (14%), and infections (6%). Most of the malpractice lawsuits occurred in Seoul (population 10 million people; 54% of total plastic surgeons) and in primary-level local clinics (113 cases, 82.5%). In cases in which only invalid informed consent was recognized, the average amount of consolation money was KRW 9,107,143 (USD 8438). In cases in which both violation of non-malfeasance and invalid informed consent were recognized, the average amount of consolation money was KRW 12,741,857 (USD 11,806), corresponding to 38.6% of the amount of the judgment. Conclusions Surgeons should pay special attention to obtaining informed consent, because it is a double-edged sword; it has clinical purposes for doctors and patients but may also be a litigation strategy for lawyers.

• 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
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

소득이 늘어나고 의학수준이 높아지면서 전문 의료의 영역이 확대되었고, 의료기술 전반에 대한 국민의 신뢰가 높아지면서 비단 질병을 치료하는 경우 뿐 아니라 생활 속에서의 의료영역은 더욱 넓어지고 있는 추세이나 약물에 대한 남용이나 내성균의 등장으로 인해 여러 가지 문제점 들이 발생하는 것도 사실이다. 언론보도에서 접할 수 있는 병원에서의 감염사례 이외에도, 의료소송을 통하여 분쟁의 대상이 되는 병원감염의 사례는 적지 않은 것이 현실이다. 병원감염에 의한 의료소송에 있어서 병원 자체의 관리나 감독의 소홀을 물어 손해발생의 인과관계를 입증할 수 있다면 피해자의 보호의 수준이 한층 높아질 수 있을 것이다. 병원감염과 관련된 비교법적 고찰을 통해 이러한 문제에 대한 해결점을 찾아보고자 하였다. 특히 병원감염과 관련한 비교법적 검토로서 독일의 입법례는 진료계약을 민법상의 전형계약으로 정해 두고 있어 독일의 민법 규정을 살펴보는 것은 우리 법에게도 시사하는 바가 크다. 또한 프랑스의 특별법 '환자의 권리'를 향상시키고자 노력하였고 이에 따른 판례의 변화도 살펴 볼 수 있다. 마지막으로 미국의 판례상의 과실추정칙의 이론은 원고의 입증의 부담을 줄여주려는 시도로서 배심원제 하에서 적용될 수 있으나 주의의무 위반의 증거제시가 어렵고 침묵의 모의를 통하여 감정단의 증언조차 확보가 어려울 때 참고해 볼 수 있는 이론이 아닌가 생각한다. 본 논문은 병원감염의 의료소송과 관련 될 수 있는 문제들을 비교법적 측면에서 검토하여 증명책임의 완화와 관련하여 우리에게 어떤 시사점이 있는지 찾아보고자 하였다.

• 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.