|
KMID : 1234820150160010155
|
|
Korean Society of Law and Medicine
2015 Volume.16 No. 1 p.155 ~ p.190
|
|
|
Review of 2014 Major Medical Decisions
|
|
Jeong Hye-Seung
Lee Dong-Pil
Yoo Hyun-Jung
Lee Jung-Sun
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
The court sentenced meaningful decisions related to the medical service in 2014. The court assumed the negligence of medical staff in the accident if being broken while using the medical equipment for not an original purpose at the time of surgery and ruled that the compensation for damage can be recognized in recognition of the causal relationship between the explanation duty violation and side effect’s happening when unproven surgery on safety is implemented regarding the duty of explanation, that in the case of cosmetic surgery, the subject on the duty of explanation needs to be expanded compared to the general medical practice and that the duty of explanation cannot be accepted for the range that cannot be expectable. Also, the court has provided the requirement and limitation of self-determination exercise in case of the crash between patient’s self-determination and doctor’s duty of care and has ruled that as automobile insurance contract is a contract with the insurance company to pay regarding liability for car accidents, treating patients and taking the insurance money is not illegal activity even for the unlicensed hospital violating the medical law while established. The judgment stating the opinion that medical practitioners cannot be punished according to the medical law prohibiting the receiving of rebate in case that medical practitioners did not receive benefit while the medical institution itself gained an unfair economic benefit also stands out. And the court has ruled that even if the medical institution who received a business suspension is closed, the suspension is still effective in case that the same operator opens a new medical institution in the same place, ruled on the requirement to conduct a medical service outside of the medical institution that the doctor opened and ruled that the administrative penalty cannot be conducted prior to the conviction on charge of violating the medical law.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
medical equipment, assumption of negligence, duty of explanation, causal relationship, cosmetic surgery, limitation of explanation duty, patient’s self-determination, doctor’s duty of care, automobile insurance contract, rebate
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|