• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.271-310
• /
• 2006

In the situation of bringing out of social problem about the medical accident and medical dispute, from 1988 the enactment activity for a legislative bill on conciliation of dispute has promoted, a legislative bill on prevention and relief of medical accident was again proposed in December, 2005. This bill has been faced rough going in review process of National Assembly. Because the purpose of this legislative bill is the conciliation of interest of between medical service consumer and medical service supplier, an item of issues of law is no-fault compensation scheme. However, as no-fault compensation scheme runs counter to the principle liability with fault in our civil law, as expected, whether the inducement is valid or, if induced, the problem is not must be totally reviewed. First of all, the general of principle liability without fault and especially the medical system in foreign countries are reviewed, by reviewing an issue and the pros and cons of the inducement of no-fault compensation scheme, this article draws the conclusion. After all, considering that the necessity adapting Gefahrdungschftung in medical accident as much as other industrial fields exists, the many provisions of the principle liability without fault exists in civil law and special law of our law system, and no-fault compensation scheme let legislative purpose be, to what extent, achieved by conciliating patient and doctor, the inducement of principle liability without fault in medical field is reasonable in the aspect of politic and legal system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• 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.

• 한국임상약학회지
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.18-27
• /
• 2008

This study investigated social relief schemes for serious adverse drug reactions in foreign countries and deduced lessons and implications for Korea to implement the scheme. A social relief scheme for serious adverse drug reactions provides reliefs for diseases and such health effects as disabilities or deaths that were caused by adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals prescribed at hospitals and clinics as well as those purchased at pharmacies notwithstanding their proper use. The US and the UK do not have specific relief schemes for adverse drug reactions but apply rules of strict liability or negligence. New Zealand and Nordic countries provide no-fault compensation schemes for health effects or injuries caused by medical treatments or medicinal products. Japan and Taiwan have operated the schemes since 1980 and 2000, respectively. In designing the scheme in Korea, we suggested that cases eligible for relief be confined to serious adverse reactions such as death or disability and then extended to diseases. It is desirable to encourage the reporting system of adverse drug reactions and quality use of medicines for the relief scheme to work efficiently.