2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

2. G:

3. H;

4. I

A. Status of the parties

(1) Defendant F is the head of the J Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”); Defendant H is the nurse working in the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital; Defendant G is the radiation medical technician working in the film department X-ray photographing room of the Defendant Hospital; and the Defendant [the Defendant] is the doctor who is in charge of the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital.

(2) The Plaintiff A is the spouse of K (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died while transferred to the Jeonnam University Hospital and was hospitalized after the Defendant Hospital was affected by the accident, and the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E are the offspring of the deceased.

B. Circumstances of the deceased’s internal organs

(1) On May 8, 2013, around 18:37, the Deceased was sleeped with Plaintiff A and E to the emergency room of the Defendant hospital. At the time, Plaintiff A and other medical personnel of the Defendant hospital were hospitalized frequently in alcohol hospitals due to frequent drinking (e.g., 3-4 disease) by the Deceased, and the uneasiness is not true. As such, the Deceased demanded to be hospitalized at the Defendant hospital to prevent the Deceased from drinking alcohol any longer.

(2) Accordingly, Defendant I requested the Deceased to take a therapy and blood test and chest (Chest PA) X-ray photographs.

C. Occurrence of the instant accident

(1) Around 19:00 on May 8, 2013, Defendant H moved the deceased to X-ray photographing room after he/she laid the deceased in a wheelchairs, and transferred the deceased to Defendant G.

(2) At around 19:05, Defendant G moved the deceased to take hand before X-ray shooting machines so that he can do so, and then he can do so. Between them, the deceased was knife and knife the head on the floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). Around 19:05, the deceased was knife and knife on the floor.

D. Occurrence of cerebral blood of the Deceased

(1) From the head of the deceased’s head, the Defendant G caused the deceased to sit in the wheelchairs, and contacted the deceased into an emergency room. Defendant G requested the deceased to immediately transfer the deceased and the deceased to a X-ray photographing room and to conduct CT shooting.

(2) Around 19:10, Defendant I revealed that the Plaintiff E had two alleys and 5 cms of thrings, and explained that there was no opinion on cerebral blood transfusion in the present state. Since the symptoms of the Deceased are likely to cause an unforeseeable and delayed cT transfusion in the event of the occurrence of two alleys, mouths, food rooms, etc. due to the symptoms of the Deceased, Defendant I observed the progress of the Deceased in a middle-patient, notified that there was a need to carry out cT shooting again after several hours, and disinfected the parts of the body of the deceased by transferring the deceased to an emergency room around 19:15.

(3) The Deceased complained of two copies at the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital at around 19:33, and at around 19:40, he was in the heart-dong. However, at around 20:00, he was transferred to a middle patient room, the food condition was life-sustaining at around 20:0, and the response was normal.

(4) 그 후 중환자실로 옮겨진 망인에게서 20:45경 의식저하 및 동공부동(瞳孔不同, pupil anisocoria) 증상이 나타나자, 피고 I는 20:48경 망인에 대해 두부 CT 촬영을 다시 의뢰하였고, 두 번째 CT 촬영 결과 망인에게서 지연성 출혈로 보이는 경막하출혈 (SDH, subdural hemorrhage) 소견이 나타나자 21:00경 망인을 다시 응급실로 이송한 후 원고 E에게 전원의 필요성을 설명한 후 21:05경 피고 병원 구급차로 망인을 전남대 학교병원으로 전원 조치하였다.

E. Death of the Deceased

On May 8, 2013, at around 21:29, the Deceased sent back to an emergency room of the Jeonnam University Hospital, and thereafter, from around 22:15 to around 02:15 of the following day, the Deceased continued to undergo brain surgery at the Jeonnam University Hospital and received hospitalized treatment at the Jeonnam University Hospital, but eventually, on May 10, 2013, around 13:05 of the following day, the Deceased died of brain pressure on the ground of cerebrovassis caused by the instant accident.

F. As a result of criminal punishment against Defendant G, Defendant G was investigated by the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office to the fact that the instant accident caused the death of the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased, and caused the death by occupational negligence. However, on December 3, 2013, the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence) on the ground that it is difficult to view that Defendant G could have predicted the instant accident or could have avoided the occurrence of the result in considering the condition of the deceased at the time X-ray photographing was taken.

(g) Relevant medical knowledge;

(1) The type of trauma cerebral dystrophical dystrophy is a phenomenon that can be able to observe both external wounds, and 1-7% of the total two external dystrophye patients. It can be divided into the primary dystrophy (or damage) formed immediately after the damage and the delayed dystrophyal dystrophy that are formed after a certain period of time. The 20% of the external dystrophyal dystrophy is primary dystrophy

(2) If a primary cerebral typhism occurred immediately after the injury to the external trauma, the existence may be confirmed even if the external typhism occurred. However, since the delayed typhism is not rare, it is universal to re-inform CT photographs after the lapse of several hours even if there is no change in special symptoms after the first CT photographing test. (3) The cardiopulmonary brith (AFib.) may occur due to brain pressure, sudden stress, heavy stress, infection, temporary typhracism, etc. However, in 70 older persons, such as the deceased, there may naturally be cardiopulmonary briths without the above conditions, and the causal link is difficult to clearly determine.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 9; Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); fact-finding with respect to the Korean Doctor Association of this Court; and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Although Defendant G and H had a duty of care to prevent accidents that may occur to the deceased, due to negligence in the course of duty, caused the deceased to die in the instant accident, due to negligence in the course of duty, even though they neglected the duty of care to prevent accidents that may occur to the deceased, from spreading the deceased, who is an elderly patient, into the wheelchairs X-ray room, to the end of X-ray photographing.

(2) immediately after the instant accident, Defendant I did not properly read the results of the deceased’s two parts CT shooting, and appealed for two copies around 19:33 on May 8, 2013, Defendant I appealed to the deceased. At around 19:40, Defendant I was negligent in failing to properly diagnose the deceased, or by failing to carefully examine the deceased’s condition for more than one hour, even if he did so, even if he did not immediately conduct CT shooting, and such negligence by Defendant I also caused the death of the deceased.

(3) Accordingly, Defendant G, H, I, and Defendant F, the medical professionals of Defendant Hospital, are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred by the deceased and the Plaintiff due to the above negligence of Defendant G, H, and I.

B. The defendants' assertion

(1) In the X-ray photographing room, the deceased’s duty to supervise the patient is deemed to be a radiation company. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant H, who carried out the deceased’s wheel in X-ray photographing room and returned to the Defendant G, was negligent in relation to the instant accident.

(2) Although Defendant G confirmed whether the deceased could have taken the deceased’s consciousness before X-ray shooting and the deceased’s personal character, the accident of this case occurred due to the cause beyond the deceased’s identity, and thus, Defendant G cannot be deemed to have been negligent.

(3) On May 8, 2013, when the instant accident occurred, from around 19:05 to around 21:05, Defendant I decided to re-enter the CT photographing while observing the progress after transferring the deceased to a serious patient room for two hours. During the past observation, Defendant I showed the deceased’s opinion of opinion on his consciousness and Dong/Dong colon’s consent, and prompt re-working of the two parts CT filming, and then shows the opinion on delayed re-explosion, and immediately taking the two parts of the CT shooting, and the appropriate medical treatment required from the level of medical care due to the practice of clinical medicine at the time was conducted. Thus, Defendant I cannot be deemed to have a medical negligence.

A. Whether Defendant G and H were negligent

(1) The deceased was mixed in X-ray photographing room and the accident of this case occurred with delayed cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebrala, and eventually the death of the deceased is as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole and the entire pleadings are as follows: ① the deceased moved from wheel-ray room at the time of the instant accident to X-ray room is not because the deceased was exposed to injection at the time, and the deceased was aged 72 years old; ② The deceased was under normal conditions such as blood pressure, beer, and body temperature at the time of entrance into the emergency room of the defendant hospital; ③ The deceased was under normal conditions at the time of entrance into the emergency room of the defendant hospital; ③ The deceased was not under normal conditions at the investigation agency of Do, and it was difficult to view that there was no serious health problem, such as walking about 3km from the house of the instant accident to the defendant hospital; ④ The deceased did not have any other duty of care to take care of the deceased, and it was difficult to view that the deceased’s act was against the deceased’s duty of care to take care of the deceased, and there was no other evidence that the deceased was against the deceased’s duty of care to take care of the deceased-H-ray.

(2) Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that, at the time of the accident in this case, the deceased was in a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and that the accident in this case occurred. However, it is insufficient to accept the above argument

B. Whether Defendant 1 was negligent

(1) In performing medical acts such as diagnosis and treatment, a doctor has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances. Such duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical field, such as a medical institution, at the time of performing the medical act. Since the level of medical care is generally known and recognized at the time of the medical act by an ordinary doctor, taking into account the environment and conditions of the medical act, the peculiarity of the medical act, etc. In addition, diagnosis is a starting point of a clinical medicine that determines whether a disease is discovered or not and determines its kind, character, and degree of progress. Accordingly, in determining the existence of negligence in the diagnosis, it is important for the treatment law to be selected accordingly. Although it is impossible to perform the complete clinical diagnosis in the process, it should be determined within the scope of diagnosis conducted at least 10,000, based on the maximum ethical knowledge and experience required by the doctor, and it should be determined within 196.39% of the results of the diagnosis, 2019.

(2) On May 8, 2013, immediately after the instant accident, Defendant did not discover cerebrovascular at the time of the first CT shooting of the Deceased on May 19:10, 201, and thereafter, on around 19:33, the Deceased complained of two parts of the deceased, and on around 19:40, the 19:40, and the 19:40, the death of the deceased was as seen earlier.

However, the above facts were stated in No. 1 and No. 2, the fact finding about the deceased's association of this court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleading, namely, ① Defendant's guardian and nurse of the Defendant hospital notified that he would be able to re-explocing two parts of the deceased's cT photographs after the lapse observation by giving notice of the symptoms of delayed interlocing, oral, food and clothing room, etc. ② Defendant's appeal was made on May 8, 2013, and around 19:40, there was no possibility that the deceased would have been able to re-explocing the deceased's cT photographs for the first time until he was transferred to the patient's room, ③ Defendant 1 appears to have been aware that he could not immediately be able to re-explocing the deceased's cirthic cirical cirthic cirthic cirthic cirthic cirthic cirral.

In light of the following facts: (a) there is only two minor external wounds, such as the normal two frameworks, and it is predicted that a fatal delayed surgery occurred earlier than the expected time; (b) the deceased was frequently treated with high blood pressure; (c) the deceased was under 72 years old at the time of the instant accident; and (d) it is difficult for Defendant I to readily conclude that the cardiopulmonary surgery, which was shown at around 19:40, may occur due to sudden stress, was due to cerebrovascular; and (c) Defendant I was unable to re-influore the shooting of CTs on May 8, 2013, prior to the death of the deceased’s own consciousness and the symptoms of the dynamic coscopic surgery.

Therefore, solely based on the foregoing circumstances, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 had any medical negligence in diagnosing the Deceased with a delayed fluoral re-explosion and taking measures to transfer it to the Jeonnam University Hospital, on May 8, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) As above, Defendant G and H cannot be acknowledged as having occupational negligence in relation to the instant accident, and as long as it cannot be acknowledged that Defendant 1’s negligence was caused by Defendant G, H, and I’s medical act, such as diagnosis and treatment, the Plaintiffs’ assertion about Defendant G, H, and I is without merit as to the scope of damages.

(2) As long as tort liability against Defendant G, H, and I’s deceased and Plaintiffs cannot be acknowledged, the Plaintiffs’ assertion of employer liability against Defendant F cannot be acknowledged.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Professor

Judge fixed-term