trực tiếp bóng đá hôm naySupreme Court Decision 2011Da36848 Decided February 28, 2013 about Damages

Main Issue and Holding

Whether a duty to explain was violated depriving patient’s opportunity of treatment and infringing right to self-determination if a physician in choosing a follow-up observation instead of an immediate additional test did not explain possibility of sudden deterioration of patient’s condition unlike trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay usual prognosis or availability of an additional test for such an occasion (negative with qualification)

Summary of Decision

Where a physician opted for a follow-up observation instead of an immediate additional test and such decision lies within a reasonable scope, even if trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay physician did not explain possibility of sudden deterioration of patient’s condition or availability of an additional test by considering trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay exceptional situation such as sudden deterioration which is not an ordinary convalescence process under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay current medical standard, it cannot be viewed that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay physician caused trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay patient’s treatment opportunity to be lost or infringed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay patient’s right to self-determination in violation of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay duty of explanation.

Reference Provisions Articles 750 and 751 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Act

Article 750 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Act (Definition of Torts) Any person who causes losses to or inflicts injuries on another person by an unlawful act, willfully or negligently, shall be bound to make compensation for damages arising therefrom.

Article 751 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Act (Compensation for Non-Economic Damages)

(1) A person who has injured trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay person, liberty or fame of another or has inflicted any mental anguish to another person shall be liable to make compensation for damages arising therefrom.

(2) trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court may order trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guilty party to discharge trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay compensation mentioned in paragraph (1) by periodical payments, and may order such guilty parties to offer reasonable security in order to insure his performance of such obligations.

Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

Defendant-Appellee-Appellant Ulsan Industrial Technology Institute and 1 other (Law Firm Donghaeng, Attorney Kim Sung-hwan, et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant)

Judgment of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below Busan High Court Decision 2010Na9306 decided April 7, 2011

Disposition trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below which ruled against Defendants is reversed, and this part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case is remanded to Busan High Court. Plaintiffs’ appeals are all dismissed.

Reasoning trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay medical act like examination and treatment, a physician has a duty of care to take best measures for preventing risk according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay patient’s specific symptom or circumstance in light of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay nature of human life, body, and health care. Physician’s foregoing duty of care is determined by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay standard of a medical act practiced in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay clinical medical area like medical institutions at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay time of a medical act. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay standard refers to common medical knowledge generally known to and recognized by ordinary physicians at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay time of a medical act. It is trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay norm determined in light of medical examination environment, conditions, and characteristic of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay medical act (seeSupreme Court Decision 2004Da13045, October 28, 2005, etc.).

Plaintiffs asserted that where trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased appears to have light cerebral infarction according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay computed tomography (CT) scan test conducted one week after cerebral aneurysm ligation operation, neither necessary test like cerebral angiography nor necessary treatment was conducted as to cerebral infarction and cerebral edema, and thus, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Ulsan University Hospital medical team’s medical negligence caused trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased’s death. In light of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above legal principle, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below is justified in rejecting Plaintiffs’ assertion, in light of cerebral aneurysm characteristic, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased Nonparty (“trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased”)’s symptom, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Ulsan University Hospital medical team’s treatment as a whole.

There are no errors in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay misapprehension of legal principle as to medical negligence and causation, and violation of free evaluation of evidence, etc. as otherwise asserted in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay ground of appeal.

2. Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. Physicians’ duty of explanation to patient is not limited to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay operation. It occurs at every stage of treatment like test, diagnosis, treatment, etc. Physicians may be liable for solatium, etc., as to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay violation of a duty of explanation to compensate for emotional suffering from loss of a patient’s opportunity to avoid by self-determination trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay occurrence of a significant consequence from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay pertinent medical act, where a physician conducted an operation without explaining risk to a patient, and consequent results occurred since trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay physician failed to explain a disease’s symptom, treatment or diagnosis method, its necessity and foreseeable risk to patient in advance. Thus, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay physician’s explanation does not apply to all medical processes but only to medical acts where patients are required to choose by self-determination such as invasive treatment like operation with probability of bad results or significant consequences like death. Where significant consequence to patient is not due to a physician’s invasion or where a patient’s self-determination right is not at issue, violation of a duty of explanation cannot be a ground for liability for solatium (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da27151, April 25, 1995, etc.).

A physician may administer a treatment by selecting a method which is regarded as proper according to patient’s circumstance, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay current medical standard, and his/her own knowledge and experience. Unless physician’s judgment about trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay treatment method selection deviates from a reasonable scope, medical negligence cannot be directly acknowledged merely because a specific treatment method brings about bad results (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da23707, May 12, 1992; 2010Da95635, June 14, 2012).

Therefore, where a physician chose a follow-up observation instead of an immediate additional test and such judgment belongs to a reasonable scope, even if a physician did not explain trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay possibility of sudden deterioration of patient’s condition or availability of an additional test by considering trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay exceptional situation such as sudden deterioration which is not an ordinary convalescence process under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay current medical standard, it cannot be viewed that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay physician triggered a patient’s treatment opportunity loss or invaded a patient’s self-determination right in violation of a duty of explanation.

B. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below reasoned as follows. Defendant 2 explained cerebral infarction as operation’s side effect prior to operation to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased. From trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased’s CT test of this case on May 26, 2003, 1 week after cerebral aneurysm ligation operation, he found light cerebral infraction and brain edema symptom at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay brain left side basal ganglion, but did not explain to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased or Plaintiffs trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay treatment methods as well as necessity of invasive cerebral angiography for verification. Defendant 2 had a duty to explain appearance of symptom of light cerebral infarction after operation, and additional test for its verification and treatment method, but failed to do so. Thus Defendant 2 is liable for solatium to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay family since trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased lost additional treatment opportunity and self-determination right was invaded.

C. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below and evidence revealed as follows. Ischemic lesion in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay follow-up brain CT test after cerebral aneurysm ligation operation is observed in many patients, but cerebral infarction symptom is rare. Cerebral infarction due to brain vessel contracture after a non-ruptured cerebral aneurysm ligation operation unaccompanied by brain subarachnoid hemorrhage is very rare and its occurrence is reported.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased received a non-ruptured cerebral aneurysm ligation operation on May 20, 2003 and showed relatively good convalescence process. Amidst, he received a follow-up brain CT test. At that time, from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay neurological perspective, patient’s condition was good with clear consciousness, orientation, non-decrease in muscular strength without any particular symptoms. Thus, as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below acknowledged, from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay light cerebral infarction and light brain edema at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay left side basal ganglion found by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay brain CT test, it is hard to foresee that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased will die mere within 2~3 days from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay cerebral infarction progress to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay left side middle cerebral artery. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Ulsan University Hospital medical team including Defendant 2 did not administer a cerebral angiography test as to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased promptly after trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay brain CT test and opted for convalescence observation. However, it cannot be viewed as deviating from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay reasonable scope.

Thus, as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Ulsan University Hospital medical team including Defendant 2 was observing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased’s convalescence based on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay brain CT opinion, it did not explain trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay possibility that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay deceased may die from sudden severe development of cerebral infarction or availability of additional cerebral angiography test for diagnosis of brain vessel contracture. However, it cannot be said that it caused patient’s treatment opportunity loss or invaded a self-determination right. Nonetheless, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below ordered solatium payment to Defendants on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay ground of violation of duty of explanation based on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above reasons.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below erred in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay misapprehension of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay legal principle as to physician’s duty of explanation, which affected trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we reverse that part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment below which ruled against Defendants and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay reversed portion is remanded to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is decided as per Disposition by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay assent of all participating Justices.

Justices

Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)

Lee In-bok

Park Poe-young (Justice in charge)

Kim Shin