• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• 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.

• 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.12 no.2
• /
• 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
• /
• 1999.10a
• /
• pp.85-85
• /
• 1999

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• 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
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 2019

Due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits, it is difficult for medical consumers, who are weak in getting information when it comes to health care problem, to secure all information inside the hospital. Even if you are confident about the hospital infection, it is true that people have difficult to obtain medical testimony by expert. It is seen as no easy task to testify to the malpractice of colleagues who work in the same field not only in our country but also abroad, when a doctor gives negative testimony to another doctor in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Although few health care providers will be motivated to take medical care from the outset, testimony or statements from a medical practitioner can have a significant impact on the outcome of a lawsuit, as it is impossible for the patient to control or be aware of the whole process of medical conduct, especially in the event of a hospital infection and the victim. If the hospital can prove the causality of damages caused by negligence of the employees or supervision of the hospital itself in a medical suit caused by the infection, the level of protection of the victim could be raised further. We sought to find a solution to these problems by looking at the provisions of other laws related to hospital infection. In particular, as the comparative legal review regarding hospital infection, Germany's legislative precedent sets a medical contract as a typical civil law contract, so it is thought that looking at German civil law regulations also has implications for Korean law. We also tried to improve the French Special Act 'rights of patients' and we can look at the consequent changes in court cases. Finally, the content of the U.S. case's and the theory of 'the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur' in relation to it show that doctors and hospitals have been forced to shift the burden of proof through this theory. This paper tried to find out the implications of mitigating the burden of proof by reviewing various issues that might be related to medical litigation of hospital infection from a comparative point of view.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.139-171
• /
• 2018

The 「Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes」(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes') provides that the state should compensate the victims of medical accidents occurred irresistibly in childbirth despite that health and medical service personnel fulfilled their duty of care for their damage within the range of its budget(Article 46 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes). Given that victims of medical accidents could expect demage recovery only through lawsuits thus far, this act can be said to be a groundbreaking act. However, However, as 30% of the costs for such medical accident compensation projects are borne by those who have records of childbirth among the founders of health and medical institutions (Article 21 of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes), there has been a question about whether doctors are held responsible despite that the accidents such as the deaths of mothers and newborn babies occurred irresistibly without doctors' fault. However, recently, the Constitutional Court ruled that 'the range of founders of health and medical institutions' and 'share ratios of finances for compensation' in Article 46 (3) of the Act on Mediation of Medical Disputes' related to the imposition of the share of costs are institutional (Constitutional Court ruling dated April 26, 2018, 2015Heonga13, hereinafter referred to as 'the ruling in the case'). Although the ruling in the case was made based on only the principle of statutory reservation and the principle of ban on comprehensive authorization, this paper added a practical judgment. This paper proved that the share of costs in this case has the nature of burden charges in pursuit of study and does not infringe on the property rights of the founders of health medical institutions even in light of the principle of proportionality because there is a legitimate reason for imposing the burden charge. The imposition of the share of costs in the system for compensation for medical accidents occurred irresistibly is against the principle of liability with fault in part. However, the medical accident compensation projects are rational a national policy for the victims of medical accidents and the medical world clearly gains some benefits from the effect to terminate medical disputes. The expansion of finances for compensation through the payments of the share of costs will reduce the suffering and misunderstanding of victims of medical accidents occurred in the process of childbirth and will be very helpful to the construction of stable treatment environments of medical workers by quickly establishing the medical accident compensation projects as such.