• 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.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.39 no.2 s.259
• /
• pp.117-126
• /
• 2006

Background: The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of malpractice claims related to hemopneumothorax and to identify the causes and potential preventability of such claims. Material and Method: A retrospective study was performed by reviewing the records in the Lawnb website and Lx CD-rom: the records on closed malpractice claims involving hemopneumothorax were abstracted from the files available for analysis. The records were reviewed and were analysed to determine the etiology of hemopneumothorax, patient age, results of lawsuit and indemnity payment, underlying diseases, cause of death or complications, and the factors associated with a successful defense. Result: Seven closed claim involving hemopneumothorax were founded in the data for malpractice. Three claims were supreme court decision, one was a high court decision and three claims were district court decision. The most common cause of death was tension pneumothorax. Four of which resulted in indemnity payments. Conclusion: While malpractice claims involving hemopneumothorax were uncommon, they resulted in a high rate and amount of indemnity payments. Claims are more common in pediatric patients. In case of iatrogenic hemopneumothorax, post-procedural X-ray can improve patient outcome and is also associated with decreased indemnity risks. Informed consent is also important.

• 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.9 no.1
• /
• pp.129-162
• /
• 2008

Nowadays it is important for us to resolute medical disputes. Because a high incidence of medical accidents may be brought about according to many chances of treatment in the operation of health insurance and increasing concern of patient health. Patients and medical doctors have plenty of difficulty in uncomfortable treatment circumstances of a high incidence of medical accidents. It is especially desirable that our society should prevent medical accidents and resolute speedy, fairly and rationally the happened medical disputes. Many legislations were suggested to resolute medical dispute. But legal issue points stress only speedy medical dispute resolution procedure and don't compromise fair and professional procedure. Accordingly these legal arguing points had not been accepted by the National Assembly and people. If the speedy resolution of medical dispute was demanded to solve unsafe treatment circumstances, it is necessitated that the legislation containing legal issue points to procedure is enacted. Of course the interest of patients and doctors to legal issue points must be balanced. Because an arguing points to the reversal of proof burden is consisted of the entity judgement in connection with setting the basis of resolution of medical dispute, the legislation to these is checked carefully.

• 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'.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.300-305
• /
• 2002

The construction project is a complex undertaking involving multiple participants. Conflicts are inherently natural in the construction projects and subsequently, a success of projects mainly depends on how well to cope with the conflicts. In the past, courts usually took the position that the professional's exposure in damages for negligent performance of any of his/her duties would not extend to strangers to the contractual arrangement. However, courts today generally reject that rationale which was earlier in vogue and protect architects, engineers, and contractors from being liable to third parties. It means that the lack of privity of contract could rarely protect a profession in a suit alleging the negligence or professional malpractice in preparing plans or specifications. The main goal of this paper is to enhance the understanding of the legal aspect of privity and to provide the trend of no-privity disputes through the analysis of lawsuit cases during the last 40 years. On the base of the analysis, importance of the third relationship and the liability in construction disputes is presented.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.243-279
• /
• 2019

During the main ruling in 2018, it is difficult to find a new judiciary, which is understood to be due to a certain degree of jurisprudence established and focusing mainly on contentious disputes within the framework of damages. The cases in which the court's judgment is reversed helped to understand the reason and the judiciary, and it was confirmed that the dispute in the medical lawsuit became more and more intense. Decisions on responsibility restrictions and medical records were also noticeable, with a significant increase in the number of verdicts relating to the doubt about medical records. This is considered to be part of the increasing number of cases in which the parties raise questions about medical records, and several cases were categorized and introduced at this opportunity. We also introduce the case of forced discharge of long-term hospitalized patients and medical fee bill, because it was judicial interest after the Supreme Court ruling that the cost of treatment for the after-effects of medical malpractice can not be claimed to the patient.