xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2Supreme 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 physician did not explain possibility of sudden deterioration of patient’s condition or availability of an additional test by considering xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 exceptional situation such as sudden deterioration which is not an ordinary convalescence process under xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 current medical standard, it cannot be viewed that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 physician caused xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 patient’s treatment opportunity to be lost or infringed xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 patient’s right to self-determination in violation of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 duty of explanation.

Reference Provisions Articles 750 and 751 of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Civil Act

Article 750 of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Civil Act (Compensation for Non-Economic Damages)

(1) A person who has injured xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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) xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court may order xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 guilty party to discharge xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court below Busan High Court Decision 2010Na9306 decided April 7, 2011

Disposition xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 part of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment below which ruled against Defendants is reversed, and this part of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case is remanded to Busan High Court. Plaintiffs’ appeals are all dismissed.

Reasoning xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal

In xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 medical act like examination and treatment, a physician has a duty of care to take best measures for preventing risk according to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 patient’s specific symptom or circumstance in light of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 nature of human life, body, and health care. Physician’s foregoing duty of care is determined by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 standard of a medical act practiced in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 clinical medical area like medical institutions at xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 time of a medical act. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 standard refers to common medical knowledge generally known to and recognized by ordinary physicians at xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 time of a medical act. It is xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 norm determined in light of medical examination environment, conditions, and characteristic of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 medical act (seeSupreme Court Decision 2004Da13045, October 28, 2005, etc.).

Plaintiffs asserted that where xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased appears to have light cerebral infarction according to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Ulsan University Hospital medical team’s medical negligence caused xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased’s death. In light of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above legal principle, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court below is justified in rejecting Plaintiffs’ assertion, in light of cerebral aneurysm characteristic, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased Nonparty (“xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased”)’s symptom, and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Ulsan University Hospital medical team’s treatment as a whole.

There are no errors in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 misapprehension of legal principle as to medical negligence and causation, and violation of free evaluation of evidence, etc. as otherwise asserted in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 ground of appeal.

2. Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. Physicians’ duty of explanation to patient is not limited to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 operation. It occurs at every stage of treatment like test, diagnosis, treatment, etc. Physicians may be liable for solatium, etc., as to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 violation of a duty of explanation to compensate for emotional suffering from loss of a patient’s opportunity to avoid by self-determination xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 occurrence of a significant consequence from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 pertinent medical act, where a physician conducted an operation without explaining risk to a patient, and consequent results occurred since xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 physician failed to explain a disease’s symptom, treatment or diagnosis method, its necessity and foreseeable risk to patient in advance. Thus, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 current medical standard, and his/her own knowledge and experience. Unless physician’s judgment about xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 possibility of sudden deterioration of patient’s condition or availability of an additional test by considering xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 exceptional situation such as sudden deterioration which is not an ordinary convalescence process under xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 current medical standard, it cannot be viewed that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 physician triggered a patient’s treatment opportunity loss or invaded a patient’s self-determination right in violation of a duty of explanation.

B. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court below reasoned as follows. Defendant 2 explained cerebral infarction as operation’s side effect prior to operation to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased. From xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 brain left side basal ganglion, but did not explain to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased or Plaintiffs xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 family since xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased lost additional treatment opportunity and self-determination right was invaded.

C. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment below and evidence revealed as follows. Ischemic lesion in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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.

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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 xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 neurological perspective, patient’s condition was good with clear consciousness, orientation, non-decrease in muscular strength without any particular symptoms. Thus, as xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court below acknowledged, from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 light cerebral infarction and light brain edema at xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 left side basal ganglion found by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 brain CT test, it is hard to foresee that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased will die mere within 2~3 days from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 cerebral infarction progress to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 left side middle cerebral artery. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Ulsan University Hospital medical team including Defendant 2 did not administer a cerebral angiography test as to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased promptly after xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 brain CT test and opted for convalescence observation. However, it cannot be viewed as deviating from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 reasonable scope.

Thus, as xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Ulsan University Hospital medical team including Defendant 2 was observing xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 deceased’s convalescence based on xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 brain CT opinion, it did not explain xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 possibility that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 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, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court below ordered solatium payment to Defendants on xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 ground of violation of duty of explanation based on xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 above reasons.

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment below erred in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 misapprehension of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 legal principle as to physician’s duty of explanation, which affected xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we reverse that part of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment below which ruled against Defendants and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 reversed portion is remanded to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is decided as per Disposition by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 assent of all participating Justices.

Justices

Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)

Lee In-bok

Park Poe-young (Justice in charge)

Kim Shin