J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2015 Jul;56(7):1104-1110. 10.3341/jkos.2015.56.7.1104.

Litigations in Ophthalmology for 25 Years in Korea

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hjm@snu.ac.kr
  • 2Law Firm LK Partners, Seoul, Korea.
  • 3Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE
To analyze the characteristics of defendants, court rulings and the compensation received in medical disputes relating to ophthalmology.
METHODS
Retrospective analyses of ophthalmic claims obtained from websites between 1989 and 2014 were performed.
RESULTS
Among 42 cases, 26 cases were ruled partially in favor of plaintiffs and 16 cases, ruled in favor of the defendant. Regarding the type of hospital, private clinics accounted for 22 claims, tertiary referral hospitals took 16 claims, and the secondary hospitals took 6 claims. The judgment amount of all of the lawsuits was Won1,770,466,250 and average amount was Won66,743,168 (Won5,000,000-Won455,869,936). The condition with the highest mean payment per claim was glaucoma (Won223,788,608). The consolation money for emotional distress due to violation of liability for explanation comprised a large proportion of the compensation, accounting for 62% of total payment. The conditions most likely to result in payment were those related to the retina, which occurred in 7 cases (70%). The conditions most likely to be appealed to a higher court were those involving oculoplasty (100%). Mismanagement of tests and misdiagnosis occurred in 8 cases (62%), mismanagement of treatment occurred in 3 cases (23%), and mismanagement of anesthesia and recovery occurred in 1 case (9%).
CONCLUSIONS
Among all claims, those involving private clinics were most commonly involved (52%) and 62% of all claims were decided partially in favor of plaintiffs. Violation of liability during the explanation of the condition and negligence during the act of diagnosis and treatment were significant reasons for payment. Examination of these cases will help to promote patient safety and reduce repeated medical disputes.

Keyword

Medical disputes; Negligence; Ophthalmology

MeSH Terms

Anesthesia
Compensation and Redress
Diagnosis
Diagnostic Errors
Dissent and Disputes
Glaucoma
Hospitals, Private
Judgment
Jurisprudence*
Korea
Malpractice
Ophthalmology*
Patient Safety
Retina
Retrospective Studies
Tertiary Care Centers

Cited by  2 articles

Medical Litigations Associated with Cataract Surgery in Korea
Ji Yoon Kwak, Kyu-Ryong Choi, Roo Min Jun, Kyung Eun Han
J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33(27):.    doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e180.

Analysis of Medical Dispute Relating to Ophthalmology in Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency
Min Woo Lee, Jong Joo Lee, Shi Hwan Choi
J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2018;59(2):137-144.    doi: 10.3341/jkos.2018.59.2.137.


Reference

References

1. Jeong YY. An inducement problem on the principle liability with-out fault in a legislative bill of injury and relief in a medical accident. Korean Soc Law Med Semi. 2006; 7:271–310.
2. Kim BI. Status and problems of medical disputes by ADR. Chungnam University Legal Research. 2005; 16:240.
3. Mathew RG, Ferguson V, Hingorani M. Clinical negligence in oph-thalmology: fifteen years of national health service litigation au-thority data. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120:859–64.
Article
4. Ali N. A decade of clinical negligence in ophthalmology. BMC Ophthalmol. 2007; 7:20–3.
Article
5. Cook TM, Bland L, Mihai R, Scott S. Litigation related to anaes-thesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995- 2007. Anaesthesia. 2009; 64:706–18.
6. Lee MS, Hwangbo M, Seo HS. The judicial precedent analysis of medical litigation in the field of pediatric ophthalmology. J Korean Med Ophthalmol Otolaryngol Dermatol. 2012; 25:78–87.
Article
7. Ministry of Government Legislation. Information of Life Law. http://oneclick.law.go.kr. Accessed June 1. 2014.
8. Lee JK. A study on negligence and comparative negligence in med-ical malpractice. Inha University Graduate School of Law. 2005; 8:85–9.
9. Ambady N, Laplante D, Nguyen T, et al. Surgeons’ tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history. Surgery. 2002; 132:5–9.
Article
10. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, et al. Physician-patient com-munication: the relationship with malpractice claims among pri-mary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997; 277:553–9.
11. General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. http://www. gmc-uk.org/good_medical_practice_July_1998.pdf_25416527.pdf. Accessed July 1. 1998.
12. Brick DC. Risk management lessons from a review of 168 cataract surgery claims. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999; 43:356–60.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JKOS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr