2017 Ghana 5222194 Damage (Definition)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Seo-jin, Sung-jin, Lee Jae-in, and Lee Lee

1. School juristic person F;

Attorney Jeon Byung-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. G:

Attorney Kim Jae-han, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

August 20, 2019

November 12, 2019

1. The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff B 12,937,971 won, each of the KRW 9,937,971 to Plaintiff A, C, D, and E, and 12% interest per annum from December 20, 2016 to November 12, 2019, and each of the said KRW 12% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly pay 30,784,068 won to Plaintiff B, and 17,789,068 won to Plaintiff A, C, D, and E respectively, and 15% interest per annum from December 10, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 14, 2016, the mother of the plaintiffs, H (I), who was a mother of the plaintiffs, was provided medical treatment to the "J Hospital" (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital") operated by the defendant School Foundation F (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Corporation") in order to treat the knee so that he/she could not walk. As a result, he/she was diagnosed of the hume infection and was under the diagnosis of both sides.

B. On December 1, 2016, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed artificial skneing to the right-free knee of H, and thereafter, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed artificial skneinginging to the left-free knee of H on December 8, 2016, after one week.

C. On December 14, 2016, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital determined that it is possible to discharge the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital without the need to maintain antibiotical agents on the basis of the results of the infection and the compromise between the infection with the urology. On December 15, 196, the Defendant Hospital confirmed that the CRP (C-react Protein, C-Cogin) value has decreased by conducting blood tests on H, and transferred it to the K K convalescent hospital operated by the Defendant G (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant convalescent hospital”).

D. On December 16, 2016, H hospitalized in the Defendant convalescent Hospital at around 3:30 p.m., and thereafter, he appeared to have continuously shown snow and high heat symptoms from December 18, 201 to December 18, 201, and as the consciousness of time and place was lowered to the extent that it does not have any remaining ability, the medical personnel in the Defendant convalescent hospital re-transfer H to the Defendant Hospital.

마. 피고 병원 의료진은 2016. 12. 18. 20:34경 피고 병원 응급실에 내원한 H에 대해 활력징후를 측정한 결과 혈압이 69/59mmHg로 저혈압 상태였고, 혈액검사상 백혈구 28.87*10^3/ml, CRP 수치 175.8mg/L, 크레아티닌 수치 2.6으로 상승되어 있는 등 패혈증 의심소견을 보이자 균 배양 검사와 함께 수액 요법 및 항생제 치료를 시행하였다.

F. Around 12, 19:21 on January 12, 2016, 2016, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital confirmed a long-term light view, and the opinion of brain dypology in the face side of the left-hand side as a result of the lap test conducted by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital conducted the lapology test in order to find the cause of H’s consciousness and lapsy, and found that the laption test conducted in around 01:23, the medical personnel conducted the lapying test in the face-hand side of the lapy and the lap opinion on the lapy, and administered the lapying method through the lap’s inserting, the implementation of the lap method (CRT), the lap method (e.g., Efin,

G. H, despite the above first aid by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital on December 20, 2016, H died due to respiratory shocks, false hump infections, chronic renals, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 3, Eul 1 through 3, Eul 3 through 15, the purpose of the entire arguments and arguments for each request for the examination of medical records to the head of the L Association and the head of the M Hospital

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

As examined below, since the negligence of the medical professionals in the Defendant hospital and the negligence of the medical professionals in the Defendant hospital are deemed to have reached the death of H due to a failed blood shock, the Defendant foundation is the employer of the medical professionals in the Defendant hospital, and the Defendant G is jointly liable for the damages suffered by H and the Plaintiffs, as the employer of the medical professionals in the Defendant hospital.

1) Negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital

A) A doctor has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances when performing medical acts, such as diagnosis and treatment. A doctor’s duty of care shall be determined on the basis of the level of medical practice performed in the field of clinical medicine, such as medical institutions, at the time of performing medical acts. In particular, diagnosis is an important medical practice for which the Medical Treatment Act is selected, as a starting point of clinical medicine, which is to distinguish whether a disease is disease is discovered based on the outcome, such as a satise, satise, promotion, pandness, and various clinical tests, and to clarify the kind, nature, degree, etc. of the disease and to the degree of progress. In determining whether there is negligence in the diagnosis, even if it is impossible to perform the complete clinical diagnosis, even if it is possible to determine whether a doctor is a professional in the field of clinical medicine, the doctor has the best duty of care necessary to predict and avoid the occurrence of dangerous results by carefully and accurately diagnosing patients based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge and experience required by a doctor (see, etc.).

B) Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was able to provide early diagnosis and treatment as to whether the Defendant Hospital was infected by the Clostical infection before transferring H to the Defendant hospital, but failed to perform the duty of care, thereby resulting in failure to perform the diagnosis and treatment.

H was the age of 79 years old at the time of the instant surgery, and was in the process of taking drugs after receiving diagnosis of high blood pressure, misappropriation, etc. before the surgery, and thus, the risk of infection was high after the instant surgery.

0 On December 11, 2016, which was the third day after the second operation, H complained of the symptoms of the novel, and on December 12, 12, 198, the symptoms of the novel continued even though the anti-biotic (S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

0 On December 14, 2016, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital determined that it is possible to discharge the patient without necessity to maintain antibiotics based on the results of infection and a narrowness with the caturology. On December 15, 2012, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital confirmed that the Caturism was reduced by conducting blood tests on H. However, the caturology was not verified due to caturology, although the caturology was presumed to have been reduced by caturology, the caturology was considerably higher than 73.9m/dl ( normal 0.5mg/ 1.0mg/dl) on December 15, 12, 196, as well as the gaturology continued nine times or more.

0 In consideration of the fact that the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital was patients with high risk of infection due to the constant symptoms of H, which are shown in the preceding day of the power generation, and that infections may occur due to the merger of the instant surgery, the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital should have treated them by clarifying the cause through a compromise between the fire extinguisher, etc. in the fire extinguisher, etc. and the dub test.

0 As a result of the equal cultivation examination by the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital, it was confirmed that crostumumoumoumoumoumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumuma

In light of these points, the cause germs caused a parocy to H seems to be the chlostrostosis.

0 The symptoms caused by the infection of the Clstovasium DNA infection are most very low when the anti-biotic medication ceases to exist, and the early diagnosis is more important than anything else. If the symptoms of the Clstovasium DNA infection are not improved even in the suspension of anti-biotic medication, it is necessary to provide anti-cosin treatment, such as anti-cosin. However, even after the suspension of anti-biotic medication, H continued to provide snow death symptoms after December 12, 2016. However, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital did not perform the diagnosis and treatment by transferring it to all, without implementing a compromise with the fire extinguishers or the patru examination, etc. to clarify the cause of infection by December 16, 2016.

0. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital recommended the Ha and his guardian to conduct a chest-CT test on December 10, 2016, because of the fact that there was a symptoms of respiratory difficulty to H on December 10, 2016, and that the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel recommended the Ha and his guardian to conduct a chest-CT test, even if he refused to conduct an additional test at H and his guardian’s request, the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel recommended the Ha and her guardian to conduct a double-CT test on December 19, 2016, if the medical personnel recommended the Ha or her guardian to conduct a double-CT test to clarify the cause of the symptoms of the Ha and her guardian, it appears that H’s family members were subject to the examination.

2) Negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant convalescent hospital

A) In light of the nature of a medical practice, such as diagnosis and treatment, a physician shall take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances at the time of performing the medical practice, based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field including a medical institution, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13045, Oct. 28, 2005). If a physician is unable to provide appropriate treatment to the patient or to take such measures, he/she shall promptly take measures to transfer the patient to another hospital capable of providing specialized treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da55744, Jul. 27, 2001).

B) Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the medical personnel in the Defendant convalescent hospital neglected to observe the progress of H, and did not timely take measures against all other hospitals capable of providing professional treatment of the infection.

0 From December 16, 2016 to December 18, 12, 2016, H had shown frequent symptoms such as the continuous administration of a branch office by the Defendant’s emergency room. On December 17, 12, 17, 08:2038.2C, 06:00 on December 18, 16, 16, and 16:25, 38.3CC, etc.

0 A medical specialist within the Defendant convalescent hospital did not directly examine the symptoms of the H, but rather instructed the administration of the branch office system, antibiotics, and piracy by telephone outside the original site without directly diagnosing the H. In particular, the chest X-ray photograph taken on December 17, 2016, which was taken by a medical specialist at the time, did not confirm the status of H. In particular, the chest X-ray photograph was not confirmed.

0. On December 18, 2016, the medical personnel in the defendant convalescent hospital transferred H again to the defendant hospital only when the consciousness of H had been deteriorated to the extent that H had no other son ability than the high-tension symptoms, and at that time, the symptoms had already occurred.

B. Limitation of liability for damages

However, in view of the state before and after the instant surgery, the fact that H had a high risk of infection due to the old age, and the degree and result of each medical personnel in the Defendant hospital and the Defendant convalescent hospital, the degree of negligence and the consequence therefrom, the degree of efforts made by each medical personnel in the Defendant hospital and the Defendant convalescent hospital in the process of observation, etc., it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability for damages to 60% for the fair and reasonable apportionment of damages.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Expenses for medical treatment: 7,816,430 won;

The sum of the medical expenses paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant hospital and the defendant convalescent hospital (A 5) 7,816,430 won (A 5)

(b) Nursing expenses;

The Plaintiffs claim KRW 1,128,908 based on the urban daily wage for 11-day care expenses from December 10, 2016, where H died from December 20, 2016. However, the Plaintiffs do not accept the Plaintiffs’ claim for the nursing expenses, since there were no evidence to deem that the Plaintiffs provided H with the care or spent the nursing expenses.

(c) Funeral expenses.

Plaintiff B claimed payment of KRW 12,95,00 as funeral expenses of H. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the entries of Plaintiff B claimed payment of KRW 12,95,00 as funeral expenses, and there is no other reason to acknowledge it. Therefore, only KRW 5,00,000 in consideration of the current litigation practice.

D. Limitation on liability

1) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 60%

2) Calculation of property damages after limitation of liability

A) Written treatment costs of KRW 4.689,858 (=7,816,430 x 60%)

B) Funeral expenses KRW 3,000,000 (= KRW 5,000,000 】 60%)

(e) consolation money;

1) Reasons for consideration: H’s age, relationship between H and the Plaintiffs, the background and result of the instant medical accident, degree of negligence between the Defendant hospital and the medical professionals in the Defendant convalescent hospital, and other various circumstances shown in the instant argument.

(ii) the amount determined;

(a) H: 30,000,000 won

B) Plaintiffs: Each of 3,000,000 won

(f) Inheritance relationship;

(i) Inheritance shares;

Since all of the Plaintiffs are H’ children, each 1/5 inheritance.

(ii)the amount of inheritance coverage;

34,689,858 won (= 4,689,858 won for king treatment + 30,000,000 won)

(iii)the amount of inheritance;

Plaintiffs 6,937,971 won (i.e., 34,689,858 won X 1/5, and less than won)

(g) Amount of award;

The Defendants jointly deal with the Plaintiff B KRW 12,937,971 (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 6,937,971 + Funeral expenses of KRW 3,000,000 + 3,000 + 3,000,000), respectively, KRW 9,37,971 (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 6,937,971 + 3,000,000 + 3,000,000) and each of the said money as medical malpractices, which are deemed reasonable to dispute over whether the Defendants were liable to perform their duties or the scope thereof from December 20, 2016 to November 12, 2019; and (ii) from the next day to the day of full payment, the Defendants do not accept the portion of the Plaintiffs’ statutory interest rate of KRW 12,100 per annum under the main sentence of Article 312(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Encouragement of Legal Proceedings, Etc.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are partly accepted.

Judges Kim Jong-do