208 Gaz.18423 Compensation (Definition)

YellowA (68 years old, women)

Attorney Shin-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. Gamb (71 years old, hereafter in this Article);

2. previous B1 (six-six years old, N)

Law Firm Cheong-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

March 24, 2010

April 14, 2010

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1,355,515,734 won with 5% interest per annum from October 29, 2007 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the parties

The Plaintiff was pregnant on March 23, 2007 at the Busan Suwon-dong Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”) located in Suwon-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”), which was conducted by Defendant B1, and was diagnosed by October 23, 2007. The Defendant ParkB was a doctor of the Defendant Hospital who was in charge of the Plaintiff’s medical examination before childbirth at the time.

(b) Medical examination at the Defendant hospital;

(1) From March 23, 2007 to October 23, 2007, the Plaintiff undergoes a pre-treatment examination from Defendant ParkB as follows. The details of the examination are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) As above, the Plaintiff appears to have seen a blood pressure increase opinion, and on September 5, 2007, Defendant ParkB explained on September 22, 2007 that it is possible for the Plaintiff to have a pregnancy addiction certificate, and thus, it is necessary to walking at a low- or high-ranking level, one hour per day, and the weight control.

C. The plaintiff's occurrence of cerebral blood and the plaintiff's disability

원고는 2007.10.29.19:30경 집에서 의식 없이 쓰러진 채로 발견되어 ◆대학교 부속 □병원(이하 '□병원'이라고 한다) 응급실로 후송되었고, 뇌 CT 촬영 결과 뇌동맥류 파열에 의한 것으로 추정되는 지주막하 출혈, 좌측두엽 뇌실질내 출혈, 뇌실내 출혈 소견을 보여 같은 달 30. 응급 개두술, 좌측 전측두엽 부분 감압 두개골 절제술, 혈종 제거술, 동맥류 결찰술을 받았고, 제왕절개술을 통하여 분만하였다. 그 후 원고는 2008. 1. 8. □병원에서 우측 전두엽 뇌실복강 문합술을 받았고, 그 이후로 병원 등에서 지속적인 재활치료를 받고 있으나, 현재 우측 편마비, 보행장애, 인지기능장애, 언어장애, 배뇨 · 배변장애 등을 겪고 있다.

(d) Relevant medical knowledge;

(i) pregnant high blood pressure, multilateral diverology, or marrology;

(가) 임신성 고혈압은 임신의 비교적 흔한 합병증으로 출혈, 감염과 더불어 모성 사망의 주요 원인이다. 이는 임신에 의하여 초래된 고혈압을 의미하는데(분만 후에는 고혈압 증세가 사라진다), 확장기 혈압이 90㎜Hg 이상이거나 수축기 혈압이 140㎜Hg 이상일 때, 또는 확장기 혈압이 15㎜Hg 이상 증가하거나 수축기 혈압이 30㎜Hg 이상 증가하는 경우인데, 이는 고혈압만 있는 경우와 자간전증(子癎前症) 및 자간증(子癎症)의 세 종류로 나뉠 수 있다.

(B) The marology refers to the time when there is a single-bagurology (at least 300 marology during the 24-hour period, or at least 6-hour intervals and at least 1g/L level, and at least 2 marology was found to have been found to have been found to have been at least 30 marcium), father-type, or two these are found to have been together with the high blood pressure. The high blood pressure of pregnancy takes place from 15-25% to 110 marcium, and return to the normal after delivery. The marcosis aggravated 110mm or more, even if the blood pressure of a sarcine period is at least 110mm, 2nd or more, 3rd or upper marcium, 4rd or upper marcium, 6th or upper marcium, 8th or upper marcium marcium, 1.

(C) The lateral dynasty refers to a case where the neutical high-tension of pregnancy is extremely serious and a neutical disease, such as nephical disease, appeared.

(2) In the case of a multilateral pre-treatment, the condition of a pregnant or nursing woman and fetus may be observed by being hospitalized for two to three days, as necessary, depending on the need. However, if the fetus is not accompanied by a healthy and two pains, vision disorders, and the upper part of a body, it may be administered by blood pressure and physical strength measurements, and the external test, etc.

If the blood pressure of a swimming machine is at least 160mm Hgg or the blood pressure of an expansion engine is at least 105 to 110mm Hg, it is necessary to administer blood pressure enforcement (hydrazine) for the control of blood pressure, and to administer anti-competitive drugs (MgSO4) for the prevention of light refining.

(3) Brain beer and chromosomes refer to the formation of a new space in the bloodline, such as Paris or rubber wind lines, in which mathropoly damaged and damaged the inner part of the mathropode, which constitutes the inner part of the matride of the matrine.

It is known that the disease rate of brain be about 0.25-9%, and that the cerebral typosis is about 10,000 population per year due to the marc fever of the brain beer, which is the most shaking symptoms, and the 10,000 population occurs.

파열되지 않은 뇌동맥류는 증상이 없는 경우가 대부분이고, 대부분 파열되어 지주막하출혈이 발생됨으로써 뇌동맥류가 발견되는데, 갑작스런 심한 두통, 구역질, 구토 등을 동반한 다양한 의식상태에서 안검하수, 복시, 뒷목이 뻣뻣해지는 수막자극증상, 뇌실질 내 혈종을 동반하는 경우의 반신운동마비 등의 다양한 신경결손증상이 있으면 뇌동맥류 파열에 의한 뇌지주막하 출혈을 의심하고 뇌 CT 촬영을 하게 된다.

[Ground for Recognition: Entry of Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 21, and 34 (including a branch number if there is no separate indication; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 32, and Eul evidence Nos. 1; Results of the court’s physical examination of Dong University Medical Center;

As a result of the request for each appraisal of Samsung Seoul Hospital and the Korean Medical Doctor Association, the result of the fact inquiry of the court's net franchisium hospital, the Korean Medical Doctor Association, the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

(a) Contents of the assertion;

(1) On September 5, 2007, the Plaintiff continued to increase the blood pressure, and shows a state of at least 150/80mm Hg and 140/90 mHg after that increase. On October 23, 2007, the Plaintiff showed symptoms of a arbitrosis, such as blood pressure increase by 170mm Hg and her opinion on part of part-time therapy. As such, Defendant Gamb caused the Plaintiff’s negligence of failing to take measures of hospitalization and appropriate pharmacologic for the prevention and safe division of cerebral transfusions and other major institutions, and at least where the marine or her condition becomes worse by measuring the blood pressure, cardiopulmonary skin, and the marcosis of a fetus by measuring the marc and marc, and at least the Plaintiff’s negligence of failing to perform cerebral pressure, even if the Plaintiff’s marcsis was neglected, and thus, the Plaintiff’s marc was at least neglected by the Plaintiff’s negligence.

(2) In addition, Defendant ParkB has to carry out the Plaintiff with a physical restraint, food care, and one hour-time walking movement, and emphasizes that the Plaintiff may have serious risks, such as cerebral blood and salute, and follow one’s instructions when leaving a pregnancy addiction certificate. However, Defendant ParkB failed to perform its duty of explanation by failing to explain in detail the concentration observation through hospital treatment and the necessity of pharmacologic treatment, etc. due to the treatment method of her pregnancy and high blood pressure, and neglecting the Plaintiff’s opportunity to visit a superior hospital or undergo hospital treatment.

(3) Therefore, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the said nonperformance or tort, and Defendant BB1 is liable to compensate the said damages as Defendant B’s employer.

B. Determination

(1) Whether there was any negligence in treating pregnant high blood pressure

(2) Considering that there is extremely difficult causal link between the Plaintiff’s medical treatment process and the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of care at Samsung 2, which is an area requiring high level of expertise and thus, it is difficult to presume that such symptoms were due to medical negligence by proving indirect facts regarding the occurrence of the symptoms. However, even in such a case, it is difficult to view that there is no probability to presume the occurrence of the outcome due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s medical doctor’s negligence to prove the causal link between the Plaintiff’s 1 and the Plaintiff’s 6-related medical treatment for 7-related diseases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 205Da5867, May 31, 2007). In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s 1-related medical treatment report and the Plaintiff’s 6-related medical treatment report on the 0-related symptoms, it is difficult to view that there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff’s 2-related medical treatment report on the 1-related surgery of the Plaintiff.

(2) Whether the duty of explanation has been violated

In a case where a doctor is able to avoid a serious consequence that could not be predicted to a patient by performing an operation without properly explaining the patient, etc., even though the doctor could have avoided the occurrence of a serious result by selecting whether the patient would receive the medical act by exercising his/her self-determination right if he/she had been aware of the symptoms, treatment or diagnosis method of the disease before he/she performed the operation, etc., but the patient could have avoided the occurrence of a serious result by selecting whether the patient would receive the medical act by exercising his/her self-determination right. Therefore, in this sense, the doctor's explanation is not for all the medical courses but for all the medical courses, such as surgery, etc., where a doctor performs a medical act highly likely to cause adverse results, or where a medical act is conducted after the death, etc., it should be subject to the case where the doctor requires self-determination of the patient, such as where the doctor does not have any serious result, or where the patient's self-determination right to self-determination is not an issue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do208.).

In the instant case where it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s cerebrovascular was caused by the diagnosis and treatment of Defendant ParkB, as seen earlier, even if Defendant ParkB did not explain the intensive observation through hospitalized treatment and the necessity of pharmacologic treatment by means of the treatment method of high blood pressure as alleged by the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having violated the duty to explain.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Senior Byung-in

Judges Kim Gin-man