[ad_1]
The appearance of a hospital bed. The photos are not directly related to the article. [뉴스1]
At dawn, a patient lying in a hospital bed in an intensive care unit of a general hospital fell to the ground with a “pounding” sound. It occurred 15 minutes after the nurse checked the patient’s sleeping status. Patient A suffered brain damage due to a blow to the head in this fall accident.
The Supreme Court annuls 60% of the hospital responsibility
The Health Insurance Corporation sued the hospital for compensation for this accident. The hospital did not take care of the patient, so the patient needed treatment and the corporation shared the cost, so the intention is to compensate for this damage.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court (Justice Lee Dong-won, Chief Justice) announced on the 9th that it broke the sentence of the first and second trials that recognized the hospital’s responsibility for damages by 60% and returned the case. to the Department of Civil Affairs of the Seoul Central District Court. Why did the Supreme Court see that it could not hold the hospital responsible?
Unclear fall situation
This is the reconstruction of the time of the accident. In the intensive care unit where Mr. A was, a nurse was caring for three patients. The accident occurred around 4 am, and the nurse checked Mr. A’s condition twice before at 3:25 am and 3:45 am. At 3:25, it was recorded that “I am sleeping in a stable posture without turning over,” and treatment was confirmed to progress normally at 3:45. Then at 4am a ‘thump’ was suddenly heard and when I turned around there was a situation where Mr. A crossed the bed rail and seat belt and fell to the floor with his butt and then hit his head. There was no record of anyone seeing him at the time of the accident.
To what extent is the hospital security duty of care
Both the first and second trials and the Supreme Court agreed that they could not clearly determine the history of the fall. The part that was judged differently was “how much care should the hospital pay to prevent falls?”
The 1st and 2nd referee decided that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. A was sleeping at the time and that he had otherwise behaved in a dangerous manner, such as lifting his body. The hospital insisted that Mr. A was wearing a seat belt with handrails on the bed at the time of the accident. The court ruled that, “if the belt is correct, Mr. A must come off the belt by moving his body a lot, but it seems difficult for Mr. A, who feels uncomfortable, to do so.” Furthermore, it would take a considerable amount of time and noise would have been produced if Mr. A deviated the correctly placed belt as stated by the hospital, but the hospital did not recognize him at all. Furthermore, the fact that there was no preventive safety mat near Mr. A’s bed in the high-risk group was considered negligence by the hospital for not complying with its duty of care. The first trial admitted a claim of approximately 100 million won and 170 million won in the second trial.
Safety prevention mat? … Supreme Law “It is not a valid measure in reality”
On the other hand, the Supreme Court saw that the duty of the first and second trials to hold the hospital accountable is an unusual state duty. The precedent has admitted that the duty of care that must be demanded of medical personnel must be judged according to the degree of “normal medical common sense.” If it is recognized that the medical practice of the doctor does its best in light of the medical level at that time, it is difficult to admit the negligence of violating the duty of the state.
At the time, the hospital classified Mr. A as a high-risk fall patient. Signs were placed on the bed, the height of the bed was lowered as far as possible, and the wheels were attached. Raising the side rail of the bed and installing a seat belt was also a measure to prevent falls. Mr. A also received fall prevention training several times.
The Supreme Court admitted: “The measures that the hospital has taken on Mr. A cannot be considered insufficient in light of the current level of medical practice.” He said: “While failing to install the safety mat by the bed was considered a duty of care violation, we should have first assessed whether it is a feasible and reasonable measure in hospitals today.”
He then ruled that the case was re-tried, saying: “It is wrong to admit the hospital’s negligence and liability for damages based on vague assumptions that are not objectively supported and are not probable.”
Reporter Lee Sujeong [email protected]
[ad_2]
