[1] The requirements and standard for determining medical personnel's negligence in medical malpractice

[2] In a case where, due to the doctor's breach of duty of care and the problems in the prescription system, medicines which cannot be used in the process of recovery after surgery were mistakenly prescribed for patients who were in the process of recovery after surgery, and the general hospital's nurse confirms and knows in advance the basic drug effects, side effects, and cautions for medication for the purpose of performing duties such as the administration process for patients and subsequent observation of their progress, etc., the case holding that the nurse was held liable for occupational injury or injury caused by occupational negligence in the state where the patient was in an unidentified, even though he was aware of the fact that the medicines were prescribed due to negligence

[1] Article 268 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do2710 delivered on November 8, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3632) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3292 Delivered on January 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 656) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do486 Delivered on October 26, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 2028)

Defendant

Defendant

Public-service advocates’ leaves

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004No389 Decided November 8, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In order to recognize medical malpractice in medical malpractice, medical personnel's negligence should be examined when it was foreseeable that the occurrence of the result was not predicted, and even if it was possible to avoid the occurrence of the result, it was not possible to avoid the occurrence of the result. Determination of whether there was negligence should be based on the standard of general attention of the general person engaged in the same duties and duties, and the standard should be taken into account the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the unique characteristics of the medical practice (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2710, Nov. 8, 1996).

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, in prescribing the victim under the direction of the non-indicted 2, who was in progress by the non-indicted 1, a medical resident outside the fixed body of ○○ University Hospital, to take care of the victim who was in progress of the climatic surgery and the climatic surgery, the victim was not aware of the fact that the climatic climatic cliff was performed by the non-indicted 1, a medical resident at the time of the operation, and the victim was not aware of the cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic c.

In light of the above legal principles, even if the defendant's career is a old nurse, it is difficult to view that the defendant has a duty of care to confirm the propriety of the prescription only on the grounds that the medicine was prescribed well after surgery, etc. However, if the defendant observe and report the administration process of the patient and the progress thereafter, and provides nursing necessary for the patient's medical care, the nurse of the general hospital whose duties are to observe and report the patient's medical treatment, has a duty to confirm and take prior care of basic efficacy, side effects, and directions for administration of the medicine prior to the administration of the prescription for the performance of his duties. Considering the process of the prescription in this case, the special purpose of the prescription in this case, the special purpose of the above becatium, and the potential misuse thereof, if the medicine of becatium cannot be used for the patient in the process of recovery after surgery, and if it is confirmed that the above medicine cannot be administered without preparation for artificial smoking, it can be easily suspected that there is any error in the contents of the medicine in advance or its contents.

Therefore, in this case, the defendant's negligence in breach of the above duty of care should be acknowledged in that he did not recognize the risk of medication because he did not confirm the effect of the above beecurium, and provided an opportunity for re-verification of the content of prescription as it is, and provided an opportunity for re-verification of the content of medication. As long as the victim was injured due to the effect or side effect of the medication, such result is in proximate causal relation with the defendant's breach of duty of care. In addition, the victim's injury caused mainly by the negligence of others cannot be said to be a reason for exemption from the defendant's liability.

Therefore, it seems inappropriate that the court below's explanation on the main reason of the negligence determination that the Defendant's medicine was doubtfully prescribed solely on the basis of the fact that the Defendant's unaware medicine was prescribed, and that the doctor had a duty of care to confirm. However, the court below's conclusion that the Defendant neglected his duty of care and caused the injury to the victim as a result of the Defendant's neglect of duty of care is justified

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)