In a case where Gap was hospitalized into Eul hospital due to severe clothes and old symptoms on the 6th day from the date he had undergone the internal border test, and Eul hospital's medical professionals prescribed only Jin control for about 15 hours on the ground that it was necessary to conduct a cT test, and performed an emergency operation on the following day as a result of the cT test, but died from cT test, the case holding that Eul was negligent in failing to conduct the cT test even after it became possible to conduct the cT test, thereby preventing Eul from taking measures, such as prompt surgery, etc.

In a case where Gap was hospitalized in Eul hospital due to severe clothes and old symptoms on the 6th day from the date he was examined, and Eul hospital was hospitalized in Eul hospital for about 15 hours on the ground that it was necessary for the medical personnel of Eul hospital to conduct the CT test, and performed an emergency operation as a result of the CT test on the following day, but died from stroke, the case held that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, although Eul hospital was negligent in failing to detect any additional emergency inspection and measures such as the CT test, since the 6 hours required generally by the CT test was met, and the medical personnel of Eul was found to have continued to have been suffering from stroke, and the medical personnel of Eul was negligent in failing to perform the medical measures such as observation with respect to Gap, etc., even after it was possible to do so, and thus failed to receive prompt surgery, etc. on the ground that it was found that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Sun-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2015765 decided November 13, 2014

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult for Defendant 1 to recognize that Defendant 1 caused the Sacheon-gu colon by negligence on the part of Defendant 1’s breach of the duty of care in inserting, manipulating, etc., of the internal border devices at the time of conducting an internal border inspection on the deceased Non-Party (hereinafter “the deceased”) at ○○ Hospital located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) on June 23, 2012.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the burden of proof of causation and the legal principles on medical malpractice, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. Of the grounds of appeal No. 3, as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to negligence related to early review after home-resistant review

A. A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the characteristics of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health, and such duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field including a medical institution at the time of the medical practice. Since the level of medical care is generally known and recognized at the time of the medical practice, considering the environment and conditions of the medical practice, characteristics of the medical practice, etc., it should be identified at a normative level in light of the medical treatment environment and conditions, the characteristics of the medical practice, etc. Furthermore, diagnosis is a starting point of the clinical medicine where it is determined whether the treatment method is an important medical practice selected accordingly. Thus, in determining the existence of negligence in the diagnosis, even if it is impossible to conduct the complete clinical diagnosis in the process, it should be determined that the doctor is 201 and 3010 as a result of the medical examination and experience required by the doctor, and 2013.

B. The record reveals the following facts.

1) On June 23, 2012, the Deceased was within ○○ Hospital and was inspected by Defendant 1 on the crypology and the crypology from Defendant 1. The crypology was found in a disguised manner, and the crypology and the crypology were found in the crypology. Defendant 1 sent the Deceased home to observe one week after prescribing a drug for the Deceased.

2) After eating the deceased on June 25, 2012, the deceased complained of a severe pain and stoke symptoms, and she returned to ○○ Hospital. At the time, the body temperature of the deceased was 37.4∑C, and the medical team at ○ Hospital was hospitalized at around 18:0 after conducting a simple blood test and a simple stoke X-ray test on the deceased.

3) The nursing record book states that “I am dynasty dynasty dynasty and symptoms, and 2 times thereafter,” and that “I dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynastysty

In the case of Dop CT using the blood coloning agents, it is necessary to dypize food in the old soil due to difficulties in discovery of illness and the risk of smoking in the old soil due to a sensitive response to the steering agents. In general, the ○ Hospital has been equipped with equipment to conduct CT tests at night, but there was no Dop test on the day of hospitalization due to the above laping-hour problem.

4) At the time of hospitalization, the Deceased complained of pains as shown in the entirety of the uniforms, and was administered with the truth control and the truth economy. The degree of pains measured by using a pain evaluation tool (VAS scale) was 10 points, the highest score.

On June 25, 2012, the date of hospitalization, around 19:40, the Deceased said that the pain was similar to that of the nurse. At around 20:00, the nurse reported to the doctor that he was unable to perform part of the collection of blood because the blood condition of the Deceased was not good. At around 21:10, the nurse was in charge of 21:10, and he was in charge of tearl, which was a medical care. The guardian was in charge of her own contact with the Deceased and confirmed the condition of the Deceased, and confirmed the condition of the Deceased. At around 23:00, the nurse confirmed the condition of the Deceased and prescribed the condition of the Deceased, and was in charge to the Deceased 0.5 ampll, a narcotics-related control.

On June 26, 2012, around 03:15, the day following the day: (a) the guardian requested a medical control, and the nurse took a 0.5 amplionidine from the phone from the on duty; (b) the nurse took a 06:00 amplion, after receiving instructions from the on duty; (c) the Deceased continued to appeal the flatlidine from the flatlatl; (d) the Deceased 39.7°C’s high-speed of the body temperature 39.7°C; (c) the nurse explained that the nurse will be inspected during the morning; (d) reported to the on duty, reported the flatl; (e) reported the flatlian to the flatl; and (e) reported that the Deceased’s guardian complained of the pain’s pain; and (e) requested the Deceased to take medical measures against him; and (e) the nurse was ordered to suspend the inspection immediately, and (e) the Deceased was instructed to CT10:10.

5) Around 11:00 on June 26, 2012, the medical team at ○○ Hospital explained the result of the CT inspection to the Deceased. According to the above inspection’s result, a large amount of quantity (7.8cm x 6cm x 9cm) within the left mouth of the mouth was discovered and suspected of perpetuity. Meanwhile, the urine test carried out on the day of hospitalization took place around 11:51 on June 26, 2012.

Around 12:40 on June 26, 2012, the medical team at ○○ Hospital: (a) transferred the deceased to the hospital room with the operation room; and (b) around 13:40, the medical team performed an emergency operation for the deceased in order that the blood pressure of the deceased was lowered to 60/40m Hgg and the oxygen was reduced to 85%. As a result of the operation, a significant quantity of farming and fishing, and the 2cm Sarrat mix of the wall was found, and the part of the wall was observed.

6) On June 26, 2012, the Deceased performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, such as electric shock and heart paralysis, etc., after the operation, in a situation where the consciousness was lowered from around 20:26 to 26, and beer and bee and frighted down 14 times per minute, and the heart was seen to have been in the heart. The medical team at ○○ Hospital performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, such as the heart and heart organs.

After that, the Deceased died on July 9, 2012, when the blood pressure rise and the heart fambling was recovered, but brain function was not recovered, and the brain function continued to receive treatment for it, such as blood transfusion, dypitis, dypitis, cryposis, and pulmonary dypry, etc.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the deceased complained of extreme pain and stove symptoms and was hospitalized at ○○ Hospital, and was not immediately hospitalized due to a stove-hour problem, but the deceased did not immediately conduct the stopy and CT prosecutor. However, even after the six-hour period of time normally required for CT inspection, the deceased complained of extreme pain similar to the degree of the highest measured value at the time of hospitalization, and the medical staff at ○○ Hospital had been repeatedly administered to the stovesidine at the time of hospitalization. Therefore, even if there was no conviction that the stoves had been discovered in the blood examination etc. at the time of hospitalization, etc., the doctor at ○○ Hospital, etc. should directly check the status of the deceased, and have the duty to examine whether there was a need for additional inspection and measures, such as CT inspection, such as pressure, reflecting, and taking lectures.

However, a doctor on duty, etc., who did not directly examine the deceased, appears to have taken care of the deceased, and the doctor did not directly conduct a dynamic examination, such as pressure and anti-explosion, etc., and the data on which the opinion on the result was recorded, cannot be found in the record. On June 26, 2012, a doctor’s narcotics diagnosis prescription was made by telephone around 03:15, 2012. On the day of hospitalization, a doctor’s diagnosis on the night and new wall, without careful and accurate diagnosis and diagnosis of the deceased’s condition where the doctor continues to perform a serious pain, it is deemed that the doctor violated the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent danger depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances. Furthermore, according to CT examination results and the length of the river, quantity, contents, salt, etc. of the spawn on the day of hospitalization, the spawnum, and the following day, if the doctor directly conducted a cT examination on the deceased’s new wall or the day after night.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the medical personnel of ○○ Hospital neglected to take medical measures, such as observation of progress, etc. of the deceased who constantly complained of extreme pain, and thus, the medical personnel failed to detect a tent, etc. at an early stage even after it is possible by the CT prosecutor and failed to take prompt surgery, etc.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on medical malpractice, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)