• 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.11 no.2
• /
• pp.181-208
• /
• 2010

Maternity services is often perceived as a troublesome business and obstetric litigation is on the increase in Western countries. Overall, the number of claim and cost of litigation to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) from maternity services in the UK is increasing every year. Maternity services account for 60-70% of the total sum paid. This has widespread implications for both the individual practitioners and the institutions where they work, due to increasing malpractice insurance premiums. Fear of litigation is also attracting fewer medical graduates into the specialty, leading to a recruitment crisis in obstetrics and gynaecology. The litigation process can cause pain, suffering and distress to clinicians as well as to the patients and their families. Litigation in maternity services is the result of a complex of events when malpractice (presumed or real) impacts on the attitude of pregnant women and their environment. In such complexity, information is mandatory but may often be misinterpreted. If messages are not tailored to the receiver's capacity, communicating well with the pregnant patient becomes crucial. Therefore, to reduce medicallegal issues in obstetrics, increasing attention and an applicable standard of obstetric care to avoid negligence and medical errors should go along with other measures. Considering UK's experiences, NHS redress scheme make it easier to pursue small claims and birth related claims, without necessarily reducing the number of claims processed through the conventional legal system and perhaps encouraging even more of them. The task of dealing with the greater number of inquiries into their practice would inevitably create an added burden for clinicians and hospital managers. Thus further proposals are required to limit the cost of processing inflated claims and to consider whether clinicians should be given some protection from litigation alleging a failure to prevent birth related impairment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.311-338
• /
• 2008

This paper aims to introduce an overview of the regime of expert witness in the medical malpractice litigation, and to provide a plan of how to make it improved. In regard with medical expert witness, several problems, such as time-consuming procedure, non-neural and unclear opinion without reasons provided, have been pointed out for several years. Lack of skill of the court and plaintiff/defender to question the expert is one of many cause to lead to the above problems. What is questioned to the expert? Because expert witness is used in determining probability of negligence, questions to the expert should be selected on the grounds of whether or not to obtain opinions or facts sufficient to let the judge infer negligence in view of the theory of proof burden established by the Supreme Court. In addition, to avoid non-neutral and unclear opinion, it is necessary to question the expert clearly, specifically and scientifically.

• 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?

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.

• 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.12 no.1
• /
• pp.177-225
• /
• 2011

Verdicts related to major medical litigation given by the Seoul Central District Court, the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court in 2010 were analyzed. It's shown that in cases of the medical negligence regarding the occurrence of neonatal cerebral palsy, the plaintiff claims were dismissed using criteria proposed by associations of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics in US, and thereof the burden of plaintiffs to prove the medical negligence has increased. In addition, in case of that the expected survival period of infants gets longer, payments for treatment and nursing after survival period determined by judges are made and it was judged to compensate it as a periodical indemnity. In case for the explanation obligation the most frequently mentioned in the medical litigation, in addition to cases of invoking the existing theory of explanation obligation, verdicts to mention the instructions of theory regarding instruction explanation obligation and the possibility of compensation for damages on property are given. Particularly, in cases for a liability of reparation by exaggerating the effects and not disclosing the risks related to treatment with stem cells, even if the treatment not approved by Food and Drug Administration is in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, it's not illegal as violation in Pharmaceutical Affairs Law itself. But there is a certain verdict to present the possibility of an extension of the theory of explanation obligation by acknowledging the liability of reparation caused by illegal acts with no explanations of effects and risks of treatment with stem cell by doctors and pharmaceutical companies. In an incident in which a mental patient fell and died through the opened door of the roof at the hospital, a liability of reparation was acknowledged due to defects in structure installation management and this verdict drew an attention since the overall management responsibility about patients including structures was acknowledged to the hospital besides the obligations on medical practice. In case of the verdict without giving the opportunity to state the opinion with respect to the main legal issues, the responsibility of the court was emphasized since the court did not fulfill the explanation obligations. There were some cases in which payments for nursing and caring to a patient in vegetative state during the plastic surgery was admitted. However, in dental-related incidents, the proportion of cases in which plaintiff won was low since the difficulty of proving may be reflected. In the area of administrative litigation, unlike the existing position regarding arbitrary medical charge cover collected from patients in hospital, the verdict to admit the legitimacy of collection of medical treatment was given and attracted the attention of people. Verdict in which the expression related to medical advertisement was not exaggerated disposed the original verdict and pointed out the problem of excessive regulations on medical advertisement. The effort to analyze the trend of verdicts of court through reviewing the decisions and to organize should be continued, but the full decision should be disclosed as a base, and people and systems to enable the all time monitoring should be prepared.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.181-207
• /
• 2008

With recent emphasis on evidence based medicine, clinical practice guidelines are seen as a potential mechanism by which unify various managerial and professional approaches to improving the quality of care. The development process of guidelines has been the subject of much research. and it is need translating the medical evidence of research into a clinical practice guidelines. the gathered evidence needs to be interpreted into a clinical, public health, policy, or payment context. The term 'clinical practice guidelines' can evoke a diverse range of responses from healthcare personnel. Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly used in patient management but some clinicians are not familiar with their origin or appropriate applications. Understanding the limitations as well as benefits of CPG could enable clinicians to have clearer view of the place of guidelines in every practice. In the context of increasing complaints and litigation in healthcare, the legal implications of clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance. Clinical practice guidelines could, in theory, influence the manner in which the courts establish negligence by suggesting the doctor breached the duty of care by failing to provide the required standard of medical care. In several studies, the CPGs were relevent to and played a pivotal role in the proof of negligence. Much depends on the quality of guidelines and the tools developed and the authoritativeness of a guideline. Recently, there are several opinions the court also should review the validity and reliability of expert testimony including medical evidence. and widespread use of guidelines in malpractice lawsuit could lead the physicians to greater compliance with guidelines in the long term. In conclusion, Health care reformers, physicians as well as guidelines developers should understand that guidelines have both medical and legal aspects as a double-edges sword. so clinicians, legal representatives and decision-makers should not defer unduly to guidelines.

• Quality Improvement in Health Care
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.15-31
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the characteristics of patient safety incidents (PSIs) related to nursing and to provide primary data for preventing the recurrence of similar incidents. Methods: This secondary analysis study included damage claims rulings filed for clinical negligence from 2014 to 2018 that contained the keyword 'nurse'. It excluded judgments irrelevant to nursing care and in which clinical negligence or causal damages were overruled. A total of 93 cases were analyzed. The characteristics of PSIs were derived through descriptive statistics, and two instances of nursing-related PSIs were examined by qualitative content analysis focusing on root causes. Results: The analysis of PSIs related to nursing suggested that the medical institutions where the PSIs occurred most frequently were hospitals, and the most common types of PSIs were medication, surgery, and treatment/procedure, in that order. In addition, it indicated that nursing-related PSIs occurred most frequently in general wards during the day shift, with the most common related nursing practice being managing potential risk factors. The qualitative analysis showed that careless monitoring and institutional inertia were causes of PSIs. Conclusion: To prevent nursing-related PSIs, nurses need to individually monitor and assess patient conditions. In addition, support should be accompanied by the improvement in the systems in place aimed at preventing the recurrence of nursing-related PSIs at the institutional and national level, such as securing appropriate nursing personnel and improving labor conditions.