All
| TITLE | [Injury due to Occupational Negligence,Violation of the Medical Services Act]Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10104 Decided April 14, 2011 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] The elements and standard for the medical doctor's negligence in the medical accident and whether the same legal principle applies to ""the case of oriental medical doctor"" (affirmative) [2] The case affirming the judgment below to the purport that it is hard to acknowledge a causal relation between negligence not to administer an allergy skin test and the victim's injury, in case where an oriental medical doctor defendant got the answer that the victim did not have any abnormal reaction with a bee liquid needle treatment, and without an allergy skin test, he administered the bee liquid needle treatment on the affected neck part, and the victim showed a shock reaction and suffered injury after the treatment [3] The element of criminal liability due to occupational negligence where a medical doctor violated a duty to explain in the medical treatment and the victim suffered injury and whether the same legal principle applies to ""the case of oriental medical doctor"" (affirmative) [4] The case affirming the judgment below to the purport that it is hard to acknowledge a causal relation between the defendant's violation of the duty to explain and the victim's injury, in case where an oriental medical doctor defendant got the answer that the victim did not have any abnormal reaction with a bee liquid needle treatment, and without a sufficient prior explanation as to side-effects, he administered the bee liquid needle treatment on the affected neck part, and the victim showed a shock reaction and suffered injury after the treatment | |
