Medical Litigations Associated with Cataract Surgery in Korea

Abstract

BackgroundTo analyze the results of court rulings about medical litigations related to cataract surgery in Korea.MethodsWe collected 50 anonymized judgements regarding cataract surgery between 2000 and 2016 and analyzed the reasons for the medical litigations, the court rulings, the reasons for compensation, and the amount claimed and finally awarded.ResultsForty-eight litigations (96%) resulted from errors in treatment, and the reasons were as follows: endophthalmitis, dissatisfaction of visual outcome or ocular discomfort, bullous keratopathy or corneal opacity, retinal detachment, glaucoma or vitreous hemorrhage due to the progression of an underlying diabetic retinopathy, and others in order. Two litigations (4%) arose due to errors in diagnosis. Among the 50 final cases, 21 litigations (42%) were decided in favor of the plaintiff, and 29 litigations (58%) were decided against the plaintiff and dismissed. Ten cases awarded damages to the plaintiffs because of a violation of duty of care, and 11 cases awarded damages due to a violation of informed consent. When comparing cases with errors in diagnosis to cases with errors in treatment, there was no significant difference in the relative risk of a defendant's verdict (P = 0.503). The total amount of awarded damages was KRW 439,124,496 (USD 399,204), and the average amount was KRW 20,910,690 (USD 19,010).ConclusionNearly half of the cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff due to the violation of informed consent. This study's results will be helpful in understanding the results of medical litigations regarding cataract surgery and reducing future lawsuits.

Medicolegal implications from litigations involving necrotizing fasciitis

“…First, the details of the medical processes were not accurately assessed due to the characteristics of judgments, which described only the details required for the decision. Nevertheless, we reviewed some previous studies regarding medical malpractice and judicial precedents [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][28][29][30] and tried to set appropriate variables for quantitative analysis and structure for qualitative analysis. Second, there were only a few litigation cases related to NF, meaning a longer period was needed to retrieve cases; therefore, judgments in the past might not reflect the current clinical practice.…”

Dispute cases related to pain management in Korea: analysis of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency data

“…Causal relationship means the direct effect of the cause of an accident legally under medical knowledge. The duty of care is “the obligation to take the best care of patients and to prevent risks in accordance with the specific symptoms or circumstances of the patients while performing medical treatment.” Duty of transfer means the obligation to transfer patients to a higher-level hospital where appropriate care can be performed when physicians do not have the facilities or the ability to treat the patients [ 8 ].…”