2. BB

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff ZZ

Attorney Park Sang-hoon, YY

가.원고 AAA는 1994.0.경 추락사고를 당하여, 같은 달 25경 ■■병원에서 제1-2요. 추간 압박골절 등의 진단하에 후방기기 고정술을 받은 데 이어, 1997. 9. 00.경 같은 병원에서 제1-2요추간 압박골절 및 흉추부위의 점액낭염 등의 진단하에 후방고정기기 제거술 및 점액낭 제거술 등을 받은 바 있다.

나. 그 후 원고 AAA는 2002. 2. 00.경 요통과 좌하지 방사통 등을 호소하면서 부산 ♥구 ▶▶동 000 소재 ●●병원에 내원하여 요추부에 대한 방사선촬영과 자기공명영상 (Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI) 검사 등을 받은 결과, 제3-4요추간 추간판탈출증으로 진단받고, 같은 날 위 병원에 입원하여 같은 달 00.까지 물리치료와 약물치료 등 보존적 요법에 의한 치료를 받다가, 같은 달 00. 위 병원 소속 정형외과 의사인 피고로부터 제3-4요추간에 대한 후방감압술 및 추간판제거술(이하 '이 사건 수술'이라 한다)을 받았다.다. (1) 원고 AAA는 이 사건 수술을 받은 이후에도 위 병원에 입원하여 신경자극치료와 함께 스테로이드 치료 등을 받았으나, 별다른 증세의 호전을 보이지 않다가, 2002. 2. 00. 경부터 발열 증상이 나타나고, 수술 부위의 봉합사를 제거한 곳에서 농양이 검출되는 등 수술 부위의 세균감염을 의심할 만한 소견을 보였고, 2002. 3. 0.경 위 농양에 대하여 시행한 세균 배양검사에서 메티실린 내성 황색포도상구균(Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, MRSA : 메티실린이라는 페니실린 계통의 항생제에 내성을 갖는 포도상구균으로서 병원감염의 주요 병원균인데, 장기간의 입원, 광범위한 항생제의 장기간 사용, 중환자실 입원 등의 경우 그 감염 위험성이 높으나 최근에는 병원 밖에서 획득하는 경우도 증가하고 있다. 감염된 환자와 접촉하게 되는 의료인이나 환자 보호자의 손 등을 통하여 다른 환자에게 전파되기 쉽고, 공기를 통하여 전파되는 것도 가능하다)이 배양되었다.

(2) The Defendant, around the 0th day of the same month and around the 0th day of the same month, performed an exculption, an exculse, and an exculse, etc. to Plaintiff AA for the removal, etc. of farming at the scene of the operation on two occasions, and performed an exculse, an excin, and an excinary cleaning, etc., on the other hand, as a result of the aforementioned excination test, deeming that the antibiotics had the risk to the MSSA.

라. (1) 원고 AAA는 2002. 3. 00.경 피고의 권유로 10 대학교병원으로 전원하여, 위 병원 담당 의료진의 진료를 받은 결과, 제3-4 및 제4-5 요추간 척추관협착증(脊椎管狹² 症, Spinal stenosis : 척추관, 신경근관 또는 추간공의 협착으로 인하여 마미 혹은 신경근을 침범하여 간헐적 파행을 포함하는 여러 가지 신경 증상을 일으키는 질환), 마미증후군 (馬尾症候群, Cauda equina syndrome : 제1요추 이하 부위에 있는 신경근이 압박되어서 골반 내 장기의 기능장애를 일으키고 요통과 양측 하지의 감각 이상과 운동 마비를 가져오는 질환으로서, 그 원인으로는 추간판탈출증, 척추관협착증, 골절, 종양, 염증 등이 있으나 가장 흔한 원인은 추간판탈출증이다) 및 척추염 등의 진단을 받고, 같은 달 00.경 위 병원 담당 의료진으로부터 제3-4 및 제4-5요추간에 대한 후방감압술 및 배액술 등을 시술받았다.

(2) In addition, the medical personnel in charge of the above hospital continued to administer the limited anti-biotics that appear to have the risk of being infected in the above examination through a compromise with the infection, with the increase in the numerical value of the red blood pressure (ESR) and C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-S.

E. On October 0, 2002, Plaintiff AA received infection and rehabilitation treatment, etc. from the above hospital until discharge on or around October 0, 2002, but due to symptoms, etc. under paragraph (d)(1) of the above D., Plaintiff AA left a protruding disorder, such as rain, which requires wearing of assistive devices that are not attached to both sides at present.

바. 원고 BBB는 원고 AAA의 형이다. 【인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1호증, 갑 제2호증의 1, 2, 을 제2호증의 2 내지 4,을 제3호증의 1 내지 8, 을 제4호증의 1 내지 11, 을 제5호증, 이 법원의 ◈◈대학교병원장에 대한 진료기록감정결과, 이 법원의 ◆◆대학교 복음병원장에 대한 신체감정촉 촉탁결과, 이 법원의 VV ■■병원장, ●●병원장, ◑◑대학교의료원장에 대한 각 사실조회 결과, 변론 전체의 취지

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, in the course of the Defendant’s implementation of the instant surgery, the Plaintiffs were negligent by neglecting such duty of care and causing damage to the said Plaintiff’s vertebrate, and (2) due to negligence on infection with respect to the said Plaintiff, who did not have any special opinion on infection, other than the symptoms of the pain prior to the instant surgery, and the said Plaintiff was in the same state of disability due to the Defendant’s medical negligence, and therefore, the Defendant asserts that, as seen above, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of money as stated in the purport of the claim due to property and mental damage suffered by the Plaintiffs due to medical malpractice.

B. Determination

(1) Whether there was negligence by damaging spinal ebale in the process of the instant surgery

In the process of the instant surgery, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant damaged the vertebale of Plaintiff AA in the process of the instant surgery, and instead, as shown in the above facts of recognition, Plaintiff AA had been carrying with him a king certificate, such as a decrease in the scope of movement on chest and urine before the instant surgery. The symptoms of the above Plaintiff appeared to be due to the instant surgery’s math, etc. caused by directly pressure on the flag of the flag, which was formed by infection in the hospital located in the instant surgery, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion causing direct flag damage to the Defendant during the instant surgery is without merit.

(2) Whether there was negligence caused by the infection in the instant surgery (a) the victim’s act of medical negligence based on the common sense in the course of a series of medical practice in the victim’s damages claim due to a willful breach of duty of care in the instant surgery; (b) the patient cannot be held liable for damages other than a series of medical practices; and (c) where the patient proves that there was no health defect that could have caused such a result prior to the medical practice, the burden of proof should be mitigated so as to allow the patient to be held liable for damages by estimating the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the outcome; however, even in the instant case, the doctor’s negligence and the causal relationship should not be presumed from a serious result with the degree of presumption of the occurrence of the result of the doctor’s negligence, and thus, it is not permissible to impose the burden of proof on the doctor without negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60345, Jul. 26, 2007).

(B) Examining the instant case based on the aforementioned legal principles, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff’s surgery department of this case was infected by MPA in the spathy test of the spathy on the spathy from the instant surgery, and that the Defendant neglected to take preventive measures required at the present medical level for the prevention of spathy infection in the instant surgery, in light of the fact that the spathy operation department’s infection was detected in the spathy test on the spathy on the spathy from the instant surgery, and that the spathy, etc. was caused by the said Plaintiff’s infection. However, even if the spathy operation department’s infection in the process of the operation is thoroughly conducted during the operation, it is impossible to fully spathy infection.

However, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, while performing the instant surgery, neglected to take any measure of rupture as naturally required in the course of the surgery, such as sterilization disinfection on the parts of the surgery, detailed washing of the operator, care to prevent contamination of the operating part during the surgery, disinfection on the parts of the surgery, and disinfection on the parts of the surgery, it cannot be presumed that the Defendant was negligent in performing the instant surgery on the sole basis of such circumstance, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Nationwide

Judges Lee Jae-ho