|
KMID : 1234820230240020079
|
|
Korean Society of Law and Medicine
2023 Volume.24 No. 2 p.79 ~ p.117
|
|
|
Review of 2022 Major Medicla Decisions
|
|
Lee Jeong-Min
Yoo Hyun-Jung
Park Tae-Shin
Jeong Hey-Seung
Cho Woo-Sun
Park Noh-Min
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Among the healthcare-related judgments handed down in 2002, there was a significant ruling on the timing of the duty of explanation, stating that, in order to ensure the exercise of the patient’s right to self-determination, the patient must be given time to consider and decide on the risks and side effects of a medical procedure in specific circumstances.
In addition, in a case where an insurance company claimed unjust enrichment against a medical institution on behalf of its insureds, the court provided a clear standard by distinguishing between active and passive requirements regarding the need to preserve the right of subrogation of creditors.
In the area of medical administration, there was a ruling that clarified that a medical institution’s business suspension under the National Health Insurance Act is directed against the medical institution, a ruling that broadly recognized causation in a case of compensation for side effects of corona vaccination, and a ruling on the scope of a medical practitioner’s license, such as the use of ultrasound devices by an oriental medicine practitioner.
In a case involving a patient's claim for eviction from a medical institution, the court reviewed a ruling on just cause for termination of a hospitalization contract in relation to Article 15(1) of the Medical law.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Timing of the duty of explanation, Creditor Subrogation, Suspension of a health care instition, Scope of a medical practitioner’s license, Claim for eviction of a medical institution
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|