• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.155-190
• /
• 2015

The court sentenced meaningful decisions related to the medical service in 2014. The court assumed the negligence of medical staff in the accident if being broken while using the medical equipment for not an original purpose at the time of surgery and ruled that the compensation for damage can be recognized in recognition of the causal relationship between the explanation duty violation and side effect's happening when unproven surgery on safety is implemented regarding the duty of explanation, that in the case of cosmetic surgery, the subject on the duty of explanation needs to be expanded compared to the general medical practice and that the duty of explanation cannot be accepted for the range that cannot be expectable. Also, the court has provided the requirement and limitation of self-determination exercise in case of the crash between patient's self-determination and doctor's duty of care and has ruled that as automobile insurance contract is a contract with the insurance company to pay regarding liability for car accidents, treating patients and taking the insurance money is not illegal activity even for the unlicensed hospital violating the medical law while established. The judgment stating the opinion that medical practitioners cannot be punished according to the medical law prohibiting the receiving of rebate in case that medical practitioners did not receive benefit while the medical institution itself gained an unfair economic benefit also stands out. And the court has ruled that even if the medical institution who received a business suspension is closed, the suspension is still effective in case that the same operator opens a new medical institution in the same place, ruled on the requirement to conduct a medical service outside of the medical institution that the doctor opened and ruled that the administrative penalty cannot be conducted prior to the conviction on charge of violating the medical law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 1999

There are some new trends in judgments concerning medical malpractice. which include emphasis on medical professionals' explanation duty in order to materialize patient's rights of self-determination. Now, patient is not a mere subject of medical and nursing care any more, but a subject, participating in medical practice on equal terms with medical professionals. Legal accountability is no limited to nurses in advanced practice: it is a recognized fact of life for every practicing nurse. whether she is an RN employed as a staff nurse in a hospital, a Certified Nurse-Midwife in independent practice or a patient's home. Therefore, it is essential for nurses to be as familiar as possible with the legal guidelines that govern their patient care responsibilities. However there are only a few studies focused on nursing negligence. To define nurse's civil liability in medical malpractice, it is necessary to indentify both legal nursing behaviors and nurse's due care in those nursing behaviors. So this paper focused on nurse's due care, especially in nursing malpractice. To clarify nurses' due care. chapter II has focused on nursing behavior and the scope of nursing practice based on the medical law and health care related study results. Chapter III deals with the content and scope of nurse's due care. Generally. negligence is defined as not doing something which a resonable person. guided by those ordinary considerations which or dinarily regulate human affairs. would do. or doing something which a resonable and prudent man would not do. Next. it describes how we can set the standard of due care in nursing practice. There is objective factors and subjective factors. And we also discuss about the limitation of due care in nursing practice. Finally. chapter IV deals with the case studies related to nursing negligence in the situation of determination. Now', patient is not a mere subject of medical and nursing care any more, but a subject participating in medical practice on equal terms with medical professionals. Legal accountability is not limited to nurses in advanced practice; it is a recognized fact of life for every practicing nurse. whether she is an RN employed as a staff nurse in a hospital. a Certified Nurse-Midwife in independent practice or a patient's home. Therefore, it is essential for nurses to be as familiar as possible with the legal guidelines that govern their patient care responsibilities. However. there are only a few studies focused on nursing negligence. To define nurse's civil liability in medical malpractice, it is necessary to identify both legal nursing behaviors and nurse's due care in those nursing behaviors. So this paper focused on nurse's intravenous injection. post operation nursing care. blood transfusion. and patient nursing care. The result of this paper is as follows. First. there are several cases dealing with nurse's negligence in nursing practice. however, those cases didn't judge nurse's due care based on individual -specific standard but general-objective standard. Second, there is a tendency to put an emphasis on the principal of belief to distinguish who has the liability in the case of medical malpractice among medical care team. So nurses shoud practice nursing care more actively to protect themselves and patients because there is an effort to form professional nurse system and the scope of nursing practice will be deeper and broader. Third, standard of care is a necessary element in establishing negligence. If a nurse is able to meet the standard of care, no breach will be found.