• 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 Journal of Korean Medicine Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology and Dermatology
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.78-87
• /
• 2012

Objective : The purpose of this study is to describe the characteristics of medical malpractice related to pediatric ophthalmology and to identify the causes and potential preventability of medical litigation in Korean medicine. Methods : A study was performed by analysing 8 cases of lawsuit in the year between 1968 and 2011, which were selected among the medical dispute cases involving pediatric ophthalmology. Results : The eight closed claims occurring in the field of pediatric ophthalmology were founded in the data for medical malpractice. One claim was supreme court decision, two claims were high court decisions and five claims were district court decisions. Conclusions : While malpractice claims occurring in the field of pediatric ophthalmology were uncommon, they resulted in a high rate and amount of indemnity payments. For reduction of medical disputes, improvement of clinical trials and clinical medical cares is emphasized, and informed consent is also important.

• 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?

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.309-334
• /
• 2012

Although the number of foreign patients visiting Korea for medical treatments or plastic surgery is rapidly increasing, countermeasures against unforeseen medical disputes involving foreign patients are adequate. To date, the record shows that most foreign patients have visited doctors at the departments of family medicine, internal medicine, dermatology (incl. plastic surgery), and healthcare centers, which, fortunately, indicates that there are not many severe, high risk patients. However, if the current growth rate continues to rise and the number of foreign patients visiting each department continues to grow, more diverse medical practices will be likely to take place in the future, and consequently, it is expected that the possibilities of medical malpractice and the costs of dispute resolution will also rise dramatically. When a medical dispute occurs, in general, a lawsuit is ultimately settled by the court. However, since this can damage the creditworthiness of medical institutions and also incur significant litigation costs, which is a typical characteristic of a medical lawsuit, medical professionals or institutions will be heavily burdened. Furthermore, an adequate policy or countermeasure against a medical dispute with a foreign patient has not yet been established, and it would be difficult to resolve a dispute by finding the middle ground, due to relative standards and policies between countries. Now, we need to improve the existing policies and prepare for countermeasures that will allow us to precisely predict the nature of such disputes, which have been increasing, and resolve them peacefully. Based on such knowledge, this study aims to establish countermeasures against medical disputes with foreign patients, and examine ways to promptly and reasonably resolve them at an early stage.

• Korea Journal of Hospital Management
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2006

According to the available data, in these days, the number of medical accidents and disputes have significantly increased since 1990 in Korea. From this aspect, a variety of approaches and efforts to solve these problems is needed before it is too late. This study intended to identify the thoughts of patients who are directly connected with medical accidents and disputes and then to consider reasonable settlement methods of the increasing disputes. For achieving the purpose of this study, the self-administerd questionnaire was conducted with 450 out-patients who visited three university hospitals, five small and medium-sized hospitals, and ten clinics in Seoul from June 13 to 17, 2005. Incomplete questionnaires were omitted and 410 respondents(91%) were included for the analysis of this study. Each section of the survey was composed of six categories such as the recognition of malpractice, a compensation system about no-fault medical accidents, the recognition of the judgement of medical accidents in court, reasonable settlement of medical accidents, reasons of lawsuit, and the need of the medical dispute settlement organization. The major results of this study were as follows. First, more than half of the respondents, 51.9 percent, worry about malpractice. And many respondents think malpractice causes their symptoms to persist or become worse, and also some respondents think that the doctor's prescription changed too frequently. Second, as for a compensation system about no-fault medical accident, 55.7 percent of the respondents insist that a proper compensation for suffering patients or their families should be provided. And also as for the responsibility of compensation, respondents think joint compensation of both the medical institution and the government is needed foremost, followed by the medical insurance company and finally by the medical institution. The government as well as the related institutions should take responsibility for malpractice accidents for which the doctor is not responsible. Third, as for the acknowledgment of medical accident judgements by the court, 32.8 percent of respondents think that it is best to compromise with a medical institution, followed by lawsuit(26.2%), the assistance of civil organization(23.2%), and a powerful physical protest(7.6%). Fourth, as for the lawsuit of medical accidents, 62.9 percent of respondents think that patients and their families would be in a disadvantageous position in relation to medical institutions and doctors mentioning the lack of professional medical and lawful knowledge, experience and know-how as the reason. So many people have given up appeals owing to the difficulties involved in defending themselves through evidence. Fifth, about a half share of the respondents indicated that the medical institution's neglect of the responsibility of medical accidents is one of the most important reasons of lawsuit. And next respondents mentioned the lack of the medical dispute settlement organization and a general distrust of medical institutions and doctors. Sixth, a majority of respondents consented to the introduction of the need of the medical dispute settlement organization, And about a half of the respondents mentioned a readiness to accept the mediation of the organization, but the rest did not express a clear opinion. It seems that conflict among the parties concerned have existed in relation to the medical dispute settlement organization and related legislation for many years. But as this study has shown, the needs of the medical dispute settlement organization is in desperate demand. Therefore, more negotiation efforts from all interest groups should be considered for the birth of the medical dispute settlement organization and related legislation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.209-229
• /
• 2008

When we are totalizing the lawsrelated to the medical, as the Laboratory medical testing is a kind of the medical act, it is the regulation that the medical technologist can analyze the specimen using in vitro diagnostic devices and diagnosticdrugs under the guidance of doctor or dentist from a corresponding medical institution and can report through verification and interpretation. However, in real medical fields, 'the guidance of doctor' is seriously in-sufficient or even the person who is not the medical technologist is executing. Furthermore the cases that produce inspection results with devices or reagents which are not validated nor approved have been frequently occurred. The result of Laboratory medical testing derived from this procedure can become the important information for the disease control of a country, and also can be decisive to the definite diagnosis and the prognostic monitoring about the patient disease. In spite of its significant medical act to be applicable to an unique proof with the related expert appraisal result in the medical mal-practice lawsuit, our reality in which the quality control is not properly working due by the costs and the labor shortage related to the Laboratory medical testing is quietly in bad condition. Even from now, the government should recognize the significance of the Laboratory medical testing and must achieve more strict administrative management as well as the law maintenance.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.143-163
• /
• 2018

Implant procedure belongs to so called a commercialized medical treatment, its procedure is simple and clear, and the possibility of success is almost 100%. In addition, it is a selective method rather than an inevitable method for a patient's health, so the importance of liability for explanation is especially emphasized for protection of autonomous decisions by patients. Considering these characteristics, the plaintiff in the relevant case said that the contract of implant procedure has the characteristic of subcontract, and only the failure of implant itself and the violation of liability for explanation should be the defendant's fault liability. In addition, although the above procedure contract is considered as delegation rather than subcontract, whether it's the defendant's malpractice should be judged by general people's common sense rather than average people in the industry. Therefore, if all the implanted teeth were removed due to bleeding and pains, and the patient suffered from dysaesthesia during the process, the defendant's malpractice is fully proved. When the judgements of implant medical malpractice were researched, the court doesn't consider implant contract as subcontract, but it judges dentist's malpractice by whether the implant itself is successful, so it seems that the court acknowledges similar characteristics with subcontract whose purpose is completion of work to some degree. In addition, considering the detailed contents of presented medical malpractices, it seems that judging medical malpractice is based on the common sense of general people. Therefore, the argument of the plaintiff is valid when the fact the adjustment amount is relevant to the amount that the plaintiff initially claimed is considered even though the relevant case was decided to be compulsory mediation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

Due to defendant's wrongful act by implant surgery, plaintiff has been suffered serious damages to his face and teeth, and pain caused by establishing implanted teeth. Jeonju Appellate Court sentenced to pay future medical expenses and alimony to the plaintiff in compensation for breach of duty or torts. The ruling is designed to relieve the burden of proof because it is extremely difficult for non-experts to determine whether dentists violated their 'duty of care' or whether there was a causal relationship between damages to medial treatment. It was judged that if symptoms that contributed to the patient's significant outcome occurred during or after surgery, such symptoms could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence if indirect facts were proven to be other than medical negligence. Originally, the shifting of burden of proof in Germany, has already been developed in medical malpractice case since 1940s. In order to guarantee the patients' right, §630h German Civil Code (BGB) - presumption of negligence in the realization of controllable risk- has been also legislated. BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) has been interested in ensuring that the principle of equality between patients and doctors. So, in this study, we wanted to refer to German precedent cases to analyzing Korean medical malpractice lawsuit. In particular, the decision could be significant in that it approaches closer to allows the shifting burden of proof in drastically growing dental malpractice cases. This is clearly confirmed in the judgment of the dentist's "fault" that "if indirect facts about the symptom or occurrence are proven to be cause other than medical negligence, such symptoms can be presumed to be due to medical negligence."

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.61 no.4
• /
• pp.474-477
• /
• 2018

Objective : From November 30, 2016, the Korean Government carried the revised Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Act into effect. Mediation will start automatically without agreements of the defendant, when the outcome of the patient was death, coma more than a month or severe disability. Cerebral aneurysm has a definite risk of bad outcome, especially in the worst condition. Any surgical intervention to this lesion has its own high risk of complications. Recently, Seoul central district court decided 50% responsibility of the doctors who made a rupture of the aneurysm during coiling (2015Ga-Dan5243104). We reviewed judicial precedents related to cerebral aneurysms in lawsuit using a web search. Methods : We searched judicial precedents at a web search of the Supreme Court, using the key words, "cerebral aneurysm". Results : There were 15 precedents, six from the Supreme Court, seven from the High Court, and two from district courts. Seven precedents were related to the causation analysis, such as work-relationship. Five precedents were malpractice suits related bad results or complications. Remaining three precedents were related to the insurance payment. In five malpractice precedents, two precedents of the Supreme Court reversed former two precedents of the High Court. Conclusion : Judicial precedents on the cerebral aneurysm included not only malpractice suits, but also causation analysis or insurance payment. Attention to these subjects is needed. We also need education of the independent medical examination. To avoid medical disputes, shared decision making seems to be useful, especially in cases of high risk condition or procedures.