Hospital director not guilty of ordering skin treatment for employee... “Skin care, not medical practice”

A hospital director was investigated on suspicion of ordering an employee to perform a skin procedure that was considered a medical procedure without consulting the patient face-to-face, but the charges were dropped after it was acknowledged that the procedure was not a medical procedure.

According to the legal community on the 20th, Incheon Bupyeong Police Station decided not to forward Doctor A and two officials who were booked on charges of violating the medical law on the 1st of last month.

Last year, Mr. A was investigated for allegedly ordering a nursing assistant to perform a procedure after identifying the patient's condition based only on video data and consultation content. Article 27 of the Medical Service Act prohibits non-medical practitioners from performing medical practices that may cause harm to health and hygiene.

Mr. A denied the charges. Mr. A claimed, “The patient visited the medical institution in person and underwent consultation and imaging, and based on this, the decision was made as to whether or not the procedure was necessary. The act in question was at the level of skin care management that did not involve direct harm to the human body or tissue deformation, and was a procedure carried out within the medical institution according to the doctor’s judgment and instructions.”

The police also believed that the procedure was included in the scope of skin care rather than a medical procedure and was unlikely to cause significant harm to the human body. At the same time, it was determined that it could not be considered a violation of medical law because the procedure was performed by a nurse assistant under the judgment, management, and supervision of a doctor within a medical institution.

Lawyer Jang Se-chang of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “Whether or not the medical law has been violated must be determined by comprehensively considering the content and risks of the actual act and the degree of medical intervention, rather than simply a formal procedure such as face-to-face contact.” He added, “This case is a case in which a decision to not forward the case was made by objectively proving that the procedure in question was at the level of skin care within the scope of the doctor’s judgment.”

Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook

[View full article]
Hospital director not guilty of ordering skin treatment for employee... “Skin care, not medical practice” (Shortcut)