2014Na5317 Compensation (Definition)

A

1. School juristic person B;

2. C

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Gadan14583 Decided February 19, 2014

October 23, 2014

November 27, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 98,603,293 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the last delivery of the copy of the claim and the correction of the cause of the claim in this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Progress of treatment for the plaintiff

1) On January 7, 2008, the Plaintiff d hospital operated by the Defendant Educational Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). Defendant C, a medical doctor at the Defendant Hospital, issued the Plaintiff a diagnosis that he was in the place of scarcity, and performed the scarfing surgery on the same day. On the 8th day of the same month, Defendant C, a medical doctor at the Defendant Hospital, performed the scarfing surgery using the scarfing scarfs, and the scarfs are attached to the scarfs by infection around the Plaintiff’s own womb, and the scarfs were scarfsed by the scarfs and the scarfs, and recovered the scarfs (hereinafter “instant scarfs”).

2) The Plaintiff’s active condition was stable immediately after the instant chronology, and there was no confirmation of non-specific or abnormal cells on the part of the cell pathology test on the recovered dysium during the surgery. However, the Plaintiff appealed to the part of the gysium.

3) On January 9, 2008, the Plaintiff continuously complained of the pain and galpans, and the high heat continued (38.5 degrees, around 22:00, around 38.9 degrees, around 22:00, around 32:30 degrees, around 22:30 degrees) the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital conducted the Plaintiff’s taking-up and salivology test, blood test, and salivine radiation photographing, etc. The Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel conducted the Plaintiff’s taking-out salivology test, blood test, and taking-out salivology test. There was no opinion of re-explosion, and the salivology was found in the salivine saliva, which was lower than the normal saliva, but, at around 08:59, 00 Mau L/L around 23:16.751K/L within a normal range.

4) On January 10, 2008, the Plaintiff’s pain and heat continued to have been increased to 2,578mg/dL, which reflects the degree of infection (C-Reside) around 38.1 degrees, 13:00 degrees, 39.7 degrees, 18:00 degrees, 40.5 degrees, 23:15 degrees, and 39.8 degrees), and CRP (RP). As a result of the blood examination, it was confirmed that the verte was 6,27K/uL around 17:58 and that there was a little amount of air in the ducte in the ducte 227:27.27.27.27.27.

5) The Plaintiff’s pain continued on January 11, 2008, but the physical temperature continued only a minor heat since 02:31,000, and as a result of blood examination, the white blood was restored to 5,21K/L. In addition, the type of avoiding shot radiation was reduced, and there was no change in the quantity of air noise.

6) On January 12, 2008, as a result of blood examination conducted by the Plaintiff on 1.93K/uL, the lebal radiation photography and the number of the lebal air increased as a result of the lebal radiation photography and the computer screen shooting. Accordingly, the childbirth and the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital including the Defendant C diagnosed the Plaintiff as a lebaloditis in accordance with the lebrosis, and found the Plaintiff from the outside of the Defendant hospital. The outside of the Defendant hospital and the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital discovered the Plaintiff’s lebalty at the upper home where the Plaintiff’s lebals of the Plaintiff’s lebals of the body (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant injury”). The Plaintiff continued to receive treatment at the Defendant hospital on April 5, 2008 after the lebalian surgery (hereinafter referred to as “the instant ebalsium”).

7) Thereafter, on August 22, 2008, the Plaintiff was judged at the end of the workplace cancer hospital in Seoul, and was under aviation cancer treatment and fertility removal operation at the above hospital from September 2, 2008 to April 2, 2009. On July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was conducted with the surgery outside of the Defendant hospital in return for regratory medication and boom recovery.

(b) Relevant medical knowledge;

1) The causes of a astronomical hole are very diverse, such as external shock - traffic accidents, self-sufficiency, total prize, etc.), hemal hemal hemal tymosiss (the prevention of blood supply), astronomical tyms (the outbreak of a astronomical tyms occurred as the trams have increased due to the spread of species), and astronomical tyms (the case where the contents have been stored and the site has increased as the contents have been stored) by long-term malm. are representative.

2) In the event of a long-term factory laboratory, a long-term factory hole leaks through a dry hole and symptoms of duct infection appear. In other words, there may be cases where symptoms, such as clothes, voltages, semi-influences, semi-influences, prolonged decline, heat, etc., do not reveal these symptoms depending on the representative name or the situation of the patient's transfer.

3) In addition to the symptoms and promotion of clothes, simple shot-ray shooting and shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot

4) The treatment of astronomical engineering is the most fundamental method, and multiple methods may be used depending on the circumstances, such as dypology, primary dypology, and powder dypology. In some exceptional cases, outside of the operation, the treatment may be conducted after administration of an antibiotic and observation or light dypology.

5) If the head of a tent is not corrected, the patient will eventually result in death, and there may arise various mergers, such as marine, farming in the stock farm, pulmonary flady, and fladying, depending on the sexual degree of marine associated with the head of a tent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff selected the method of operation and performed the method of operation, and caused the injury of this case by negligence in medical negligence during the process of the operation, and neglected to observe the progress after the operation, thereby failing to diagnose and treat the injury of this case in a timely manner. As a result, the occurrence of the plaintiff's abdomination and recovery, and as the workplace cancer occurred or its progress was promoted rapidly, the defendant C directly is a tort, and the defendant C is an employer of the defendant C and the obligor under the medical contract, and the defendant C is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the negligence of the defendant C.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that Defendant C chosen the treatment method within the scope of discretion permitted by the medical personnel, and that Defendant C did not have any negligence and delay in the process of the occurrence of the injury in the instant case, the occurrence of the injury in the instant case, and the diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

A. Whether Defendant C’s medical practice was negligent

1) The cause of the instant injury

The aforementioned evidence and evidence were stated in Eul evidence No. 10, the result of the request for the examination of the body of evidence to the head of the Hancheon University Hospital at the court of first instance, the results of the request for the examination of the medical records to the Hancheon University Hospital at the court of first instance, the results of the request for the examination of the supplementation of medical records, and the results of the examination of the first instance court's request for the supplementation of medical records, and the results of the examination of the records on the operation CD at the court of first instance, and (1) the facts were not found in the process of the first instance court's examination, and (2) the instant self-propathization was conducted according to a general operation method, and not directly damaged the plaintiff's self-propathy and the Ethmymium in the course of the Plaintiff's propathy and the Ethmymium. Accordingly, according to the above recognition facts, it cannot be deemed that direct damage to the Ethymology in the process of the implementation of the instant self-propy.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged in addition to the overall purport of oral arguments as a result of the fact-finding with regard to the head of the relevant university hospital at the time of the trial, namely, ① damage to the commander of the relevant university at the time when most of the damage to be caused after the gymnasium occurs when the gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium g.

2) Whether Defendant C breached his duty of care

In order to recognize medical malpractice in a medical accident, it is recognized that the medical doctor could have predicted the occurrence of the outcome and could not have avoided, and in light of the nature of the duties of managing human life, body, and health, the doctor has a duty of care to take best measures to prevent risks depending on the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances. However, such duty of care shall be determined based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field at the time of providing medical practice. If it is recognized that medical practice performed by the doctor is the best in light of the level of medical care at the time of providing medical practice, it shall not be deemed that the doctor has breached the duty of care required by the doctor. In particular, as long as it is deemed that there was no negligence as a result of diagnosis of the doctor's disease, it shall be determined based on the patient's own expertise and experience based on the patient's own own situation and the doctor's own expert knowledge and experience, and as long as several measures that could have been considered as reasonable, it shall be determined only one of them within the scope of the doctor's discretion, and it shall be determined as reasonable and other measures.

In light of the above legal principles, it is acknowledged that the entire purport of the arguments in this case is added to the whole purport of the oral argument as seen earlier. ① Defendant C performed a sloping surgery using the sloping in the course of the operation after examining the Plaintiff as a part of the shot line. The Plaintiff’s shot line was found, and ② the Plaintiff’s shot line was found to have a shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the shot line with the c.

In addition, each of the following circumstances, which can be added to the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) where the area of the fested fright is wide, there may be severe damage to the part of the fested fright, and as a result, there is a high possibility that mergers such as a long-term fright, etc. may occur, it is possible to use other flaging methods, such as use of flaging drugs. However, if not, it is sufficiently possible to use flaging methods. ② The Plaintiff’s flaging flag is appropriate to flaging the flag by flag because the flag is not larger than 2m in diameter. The time of flaging flaging performed by Defendant C is also deemed not excessive than the flag and the scope of flaging flag, and even if the flag method of flaging by Defendant C using the flagic flag, it itself, it can not be acknowledged in light.

B. Whether there was a negligence delaying the diagnosis and treatment of the instant injury

앞서 든 각 증기에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ①0 복막염의 일반적인 증상은 복통과 발열이고, 진찰 시에 압통(배를 누를 때 발생하는 통증)과 반발통(배를 눌렀다가 뗄 때 발생하는 통증)의 존재, 혈액검사 상 염증수치증가, 방사선검사상의 복막염 의심소견(복강 내 가스, 액체저류 혹은 농양형성)을 종합하여 판단하게 되는데, 수술 직후에는 복막염이 없어도 위에서 언급한 증상(발열, 복통)과 진찰소견(압통, 반발통), 혈액검사 이상, 방사선검사 이상 소견이 나타날 수 있어, 통상 수술받은 환자에 대하여는 우선 의사가 진찰하여 열, 맥박, 혈압, 호흡 등 전신징후를 살피고 혈액검사와 염증표지자검사 등을 시행하여 합병증이 의심되는 결과가 나오면 컴퓨터단층촬영 등을 통해 복막염 여부를 확인하게 되는 점, ② 이 사건 자궁적출술 이후 원고의 활력징후는 안정적이었고, 1. 9. 10:30경 원고의 혈압이 90/60으로 떨어지긴 했지만 23:30경 120/70으로 정상 회복하였으며, 원고의 체온도 1. 10. 40.5도까지 올라갔지만 1. 11.에는 37.3도까지 떨어 후, 경미한 발열만 있었던 점, 3③ 원고의 혈색소 수치가 정상치보다 낮았지만 이는 수술 후 정상적으로 혈색소가 감소한 것으로 판단될 수 있는 점, ④ 1. 10, 촬영한 복부방사선검사결과 장관 외에 공기음영과 오른쪽 측면 복벽의 기종성 변화가 관찰되지만, 이는 복강경 수술시 주입되는 이산화탄소의 영향으로 나타날 수 있는 현상인 점, ⑤ 1. 10. 검사한 CRP(염증정도를 반영하는 C-반응단백) 수치가 2.578mg/dL로 증가하였으나 이는 수술 후 관찰할 수 있는 일반적인 상승수치이고, 균혈증 검사, 소변 배양검사도 모두 음성으로 별다른 이상을 보이지 않았던 점, 6) 백혈구 감소증은 심한 염증이 있을 때 나타날 수도 있는데, 원고의 백혈구 수가 이 사건 자궁적출술 이후 계속 정상 범위에 있다가 1. 10. 22:27경 2.2K/uL로 감소하였으나, 1. 11.에는 다시 정상 범위로 회복된 점, ⑦ 피고 C을 비롯한 피고 병원 산부인과 의료진은 1. 12. 07:58경 원고의 백혈구가 다시 1.93K/uL로 감소되고, 복부 방사선촬영에서 복강 내 공기 음영이 그 전날보다 증가한 것이 나타나며, 컴퓨터단층 촬영에서 복강 내 기종성 변화와 다량의 염증이 발생한 것이 확인되자 장 천공에 따른 복막염으로 진단하고 지체 없이 원고를 일반외과로 전과시켰고, 피고 병원 일반외과 의료진은 즉시 이 사건 봉합술을 시행한 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 자궁적출술 시행 다음날인 2008. 1. 8.부터 같은 달 11.까지 임상의학적으로 이 사건 상해를 진단할 만한 징후가 원고에게 있었다고 보기에 어렵고, 피고 C을 비롯한 피고 병원 의료진은 이 사건 봉합술 시행일인 같은 달 12.까지 이 사건 자궁적출술의 경과를 지켜본 후 합병증이 의심되는 징후가 나타나자 곧바로 이 사건 상해의 신단을 내린 후 이 사건 봉합술을 시행하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 피고 C에게 이 사건 상해의 진단 및 치료를 지연한 과실이 있다고 볼 수 없다.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the negligence of defendant C in the course of the operation method, operation, occurrence of the injury of this case, diagnosis, treatment, etc. is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Gin-han

Judges Scaria

Judge Lee Hong-soo