2015년 한해에도 의료분야에서 다양한 판결이 선고되었다. 요양원 입소자에 대하여 요양원측 과실로 상해가 발생하여 요양원을 운영하는 사회복지법인이 환자의 진료를 의뢰한 사건에서 진료계약의 당사자 확정 기준이 제시되었고, 뇌사상태에 빠진 환자 가족의 무의미한 연명치료 중단 요구에 대하여 병원이 이를 거부하고 계속 진료한 경우 청구 가능한 진료비에 관한 판단이 이루어졌다. 안전성이 확인되지 아니하여 2011. 2. 보건복지부로부터 사상 초유의 시술중단조치를 받았던 눈미백수술에 관하여 법원은 시술 자체의 위법성을 인정하지는 아니하였으나 임상시험 단계에 있어 비용 대비 효과가 확립되어 있지 않다는 사실을 설명하지 아니한 설명의무 위반으로 전 손해의 배상을 명하였다. 의료과실을 적극적으로 인정한 판결로는 척추수술 후 마미증후군이 발생한 사건들에서 수술과정상 과실이 인정된 사례가 상당수 있었고, 병원감염 사건에서 감염을 유발한 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 응급의료에 관한 법률상 응급장비 설치의무와 응급상황 발생시 조치의무를 구분하여 의료과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었고, 극히 드문 희귀질환이라 하더라도 그에 대한 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 의료기관에게 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 손해배상의 범위와 관련하여 항소심 신체재감정 결과 노동능력상실률이 1심보다 작아지자 시간의 경과에 따라 노동능력상실률을 달리 적용하거나 환자의 상태에 따라 노동능력상실률을 신체감정 결과보다 낮게 인정하는 등 실체진실에 부합하는 판결이 선고되었다. 의료과실로 손해가 발생한 경우 의료사고 후 발생한 진료비에 책임제한이 적용되는지 여부와 관련하여 법원은 병원에서 환자 상태의 치유 또는 악화를 방지하는 정도의 치료만 계속되었다면 환자에게 진료비 지급을 청구할 수 없다는 이유로 병원 측의 상계주장을 배척하였다. 사전심의를 받지 않은 의료광고를 금지하고 그 위반시 처벌하는 의료법 규정에 대하여 사전심의기관인 대한의사협회 등의 행정기관성을 부인할 수 없어 사전검열에 해당한다는 이유로 위헌결정이 내려졌다. 임상에서 흔하게 시행되고 있는 PRP 치료가 법정비급여에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 법원은 법정비급여 여부는 이론적인 가능성이나 실제 실시 여부 등에 따라 결정되는 것이 아니라 의학적 안전성 유효성을 인정받은 후 요양급여 또는 비급여대상으로의 편입절차를 거쳐야 함을 분명히 하였다. 또한 법원은 요양병원 적정성 평가에 관한 행정소송에서, 구조부문의 조사방식이나 절차상 위법을 인정하면서도 그 위법사유의 정도가 당연무효에까지는 이르지 아니하고 평가기관의 고의 과실이 없다는 이유로 건강보험심사평가원과 국민건강보험공단에 부당이득반환이나 손해배상의무가 없다는 판단을 하였다. 향후 더욱 다양하게 제기되는 쟁점들에 관하여 명쾌한 법리를 통해 실체진실에 다가가는 판결을 기대해본다.
2015년 한해에도 의료분야에서 다양한 판결이 선고되었다. 요양원 입소자에 대하여 요양원측 과실로 상해가 발생하여 요양원을 운영하는 사회복지법인이 환자의 진료를 의뢰한 사건에서 진료계약의 당사자 확정 기준이 제시되었고, 뇌사상태에 빠진 환자 가족의 무의미한 연명치료 중단 요구에 대하여 병원이 이를 거부하고 계속 진료한 경우 청구 가능한 진료비에 관한 판단이 이루어졌다. 안전성이 확인되지 아니하여 2011. 2. 보건복지부로부터 사상 초유의 시술중단조치를 받았던 눈미백수술에 관하여 법원은 시술 자체의 위법성을 인정하지는 아니하였으나 임상시험 단계에 있어 비용 대비 효과가 확립되어 있지 않다는 사실을 설명하지 아니한 설명의무 위반으로 전 손해의 배상을 명하였다. 의료과실을 적극적으로 인정한 판결로는 척추수술 후 마미증후군이 발생한 사건들에서 수술과정상 과실이 인정된 사례가 상당수 있었고, 병원감염 사건에서 감염을 유발한 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 응급의료에 관한 법률상 응급장비 설치의무와 응급상황 발생시 조치의무를 구분하여 의료과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었고, 극히 드문 희귀질환이라 하더라도 그에 대한 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 의료기관에게 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 손해배상의 범위와 관련하여 항소심 신체재감정 결과 노동능력상실률이 1심보다 작아지자 시간의 경과에 따라 노동능력상실률을 달리 적용하거나 환자의 상태에 따라 노동능력상실률을 신체감정 결과보다 낮게 인정하는 등 실체진실에 부합하는 판결이 선고되었다. 의료과실로 손해가 발생한 경우 의료사고 후 발생한 진료비에 책임제한이 적용되는지 여부와 관련하여 법원은 병원에서 환자 상태의 치유 또는 악화를 방지하는 정도의 치료만 계속되었다면 환자에게 진료비 지급을 청구할 수 없다는 이유로 병원 측의 상계주장을 배척하였다. 사전심의를 받지 않은 의료광고를 금지하고 그 위반시 처벌하는 의료법 규정에 대하여 사전심의기관인 대한의사협회 등의 행정기관성을 부인할 수 없어 사전검열에 해당한다는 이유로 위헌결정이 내려졌다. 임상에서 흔하게 시행되고 있는 PRP 치료가 법정비급여에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 법원은 법정비급여 여부는 이론적인 가능성이나 실제 실시 여부 등에 따라 결정되는 것이 아니라 의학적 안전성 유효성을 인정받은 후 요양급여 또는 비급여대상으로의 편입절차를 거쳐야 함을 분명히 하였다. 또한 법원은 요양병원 적정성 평가에 관한 행정소송에서, 구조부문의 조사방식이나 절차상 위법을 인정하면서도 그 위법사유의 정도가 당연무효에까지는 이르지 아니하고 평가기관의 고의 과실이 없다는 이유로 건강보험심사평가원과 국민건강보험공단에 부당이득반환이나 손해배상의무가 없다는 판단을 하였다. 향후 더욱 다양하게 제기되는 쟁점들에 관하여 명쾌한 법리를 통해 실체진실에 다가가는 판결을 기대해본다.
There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the stan...
There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously ar
There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously ar
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.