Litigations in Ophthalmology for 25 Years in Korea.
10.3341/jkos.2015.56.7.1104
- Author:
Yung Ju YOO
1
;
Kyung Kwon LEE
;
Jeong Min HWANG
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hjm@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Medical disputes;
Negligence;
Ophthalmology
- MeSH:
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
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2015;56(7):1104-1110
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
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.
