|
KMID : 1234820200210010107
|
|
Korean Society of Law and Medicine
2020 Volume.21 No. 1 p.107 ~ p.152
|
|
|
Review of 2019 Major Medical Decisions
|
|
Yoo Hyun-Jung
Park Noh-Min
Jeong Hye-Seung
Lee Dong-Pil
Lee Jung-Sun
Park Tae-Shin
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
During the main ruling in 2019, a number of rulings that were of interest or meaningful were handed down, such as just because the complication of medical practice has occurred, there is no presumption of negligence, a case involving a fall accident in which a lot of culpability has recently been made. the death of a well-known singer that caused a sensation, a case about damages caused by MERS in 2015, which is more meaningful in connection with damages caused by COVID-19, an infectious disease that has recently hit the world, including Korea. In preaching the principles of the law, just because there has been a complication caused by medical practice, there is no presumption of negligence, 'The scope of the complication without presumption of negligence' was determined differently by the court, the court was not able to specify the criteria. Specific circumstances were presented to limit the responsibility of the medical institution while acknowledging the malpractice of the medical institution in relation to the fall accident. In relation to the scope of damages, judgment was made on issues related to the calculation of lost profits of medical malpractice; criteria for determining celebrities' daily income, criteria for determining daily income in case of receiving survivor's pension due to medical accident, an incident in which the daily income is denied if the labor capacity is already lost at the time of a medical accident. But, it seems that judgments should be made based on clearer and more reasonable standards. Related to Medical Advertise, specific logic of judgment was presented as to whether it was interpreted as being in accordance with the specific prohibition listed in Article 27 paragraph 3 of the Medical Law, which is the criterion for violation of the Medical Law, or if it constitutes a significant harm to the order of the medical market. In response to the prohibition of operating the multiple medical institutions, the Constitutional Court decided that it was constitutional because it did not violate the regulations on excessive funding, and rationally limited the scope of the prohibited 'redundant operation'. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that even a medical institution established and operated in violation of the Medical Service Act did not make it impossible to receive all medical care benefits implemented by a medical institution under the National Health Insurance Act. Significant rulings were finalized that recognized the existence of specific protection obligations for the people of the country in the management of infectious diseases.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Presumption of negligence, Falling accidents, Lost profits, Medical advertising, Operating the multiple medical institutions, Management of infections, National responsibility for protection
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|