손해배상(의)
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that there was no other reason to conclude that there was no other reason to cause the instant disability to Plaintiff A, in addition to the medical malpractice that caused damage to Machine, by mistakenly manipulating the procedure equipment including the carter at the time of
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record and relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation between medical practice and bad consequence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that it is difficult to view that the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital had a duty to explain that the possibility of psychotropic damage is likely to occur as a result of the instant medical treatment, or that Mas
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record and relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty to explain, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, erred by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital, such as wrong manipulation of the procedure equipment including the carter at the time of the instant procedure, etc.
The lower court determined that it could not be presumed that Plaintiff A suffered the instant disability due to Marina-gun.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record and relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on presumption of medical malpractice, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court erred by misapprehending the treatment method of the Marinae-Matern, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, against the Plaintiff A.
or diagnosis thereof; and