• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.179-211
• /
• 2007

To succeed the claim of medical malpractice litigation, the patient as a plaintiff should establish the medical fault of a physician as a defendant, and the causation between the fault and damages. Because of the extraordinary nature of medical province, however, this application of a legal principles is rigorous with the patient. In addition, given the causation between the validation of physician's fault and damage is not attested, patient is not awarded anything. In order to overcome a difficulty of patient's verification and ensure the right to fair process, it was demonstrated the lightening of burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation and the acceptance of the responsibility for an illegal act in a prescribed range in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. This paper deals with the judgement of causation and burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation, and the acceptance of responsibility in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. Also, this study recommends a tendency of our precedent through the comparative case method of ours and Japan.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.43-83
• /
• 2013

Medical treatment has great potential for conflict. Even the best-trained doctors can commit medical malpractice that result in continuing physical or mental disabilities or even death. Medical conflicts have been increasing over years. The medical conflicts between patient and medical professionals that result from medical professionals' mistakes are often fueled by a violation on the pretext of the injuries form medical malpractice and can lead to litigation. The litigation usually cost a lot of money and time. The extension of the litigation period as well as expensive cost and lack of medical knowledge placing a great burden on patients. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is more efficient than litigation. In 1988, the medical dispute mediation system has been introduces as the Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation by Korean Medical Association came into effect after 23 years of enactment efforts. Medical Dispute Mediation Act(hereinafter referred to as the "MDMA") has finally entered into force from 8 April 2012. The purpose of the MDMA is to promptly and fairly redress injuries caused by medical malpractice and create a stable environment for medical services of public health or medical professionals by providing for matters regarding the mediation and arbitration of medical disputes(MDMA ${\S}1$). In an effort to secure the fair, speedy and inexpensive resolution of every malpractice case, the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency(hereinafter referred to as the "K-MEDI") was established. Following the MDMA, the K-MEDI shall endeavor to ensure the medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings are conducted in a prompt, fair, and efficient manner, and patients and medical professionals shall attend proceedings in good faith with mutual trust and understanding when they participate in medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• 한방안이비인후피부과학회지
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• 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.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제2권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• 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?

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국병원경영학회지
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.106-125
• /
• 2013

Medical litigation, as a method of resolving medical disputes, has been a huge burden on both the patient and medical institution as it is both costly and time-consuming. The Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency has created a dispute mediation process as a method of alternative dispute resolution(ADR). Being in its early stage of implementation, there are still areas requiring improvement as some functions overlap with the Korea Consumer Agency's damage redress and mediation process. This study examines the problems of existing practices in medical litigation while reviewing the mediation process of the two agencies from legal/administrative aspects, and provides an in-depth analysis of the situation through case studies and interviews. While the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency offers many advantages in resolving medical disputes, there must be a distinct division of roles and mutual cooperation with the Korea Consumer Agency. Considering the increasing amount of compensation in medical disputes, medical professionals are being requested to carry medical malpractice insurance. However, this has yet to become a general trend in the medical field despite the growing social demand. As such, the coverage of medical malpractice insurance should be expanded to prevent medical accidents from escalating into medical disputes, thus acting as a social safety net. This study seeks to examine the methods of medical dispute resolution and to allow institutional provisions to reduce the social costs arising from such disputes.