Medical litigation specialist attorney defense case | Defending the hospital to defeat a medical damages claim

This case, handled by a medical litigation specialist attorney, was a matter in which a patient who had suffered from serious underlying conditions such as hypertension and cerebral infarction died of complications after undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and the bereaved family claimed damages.

The bereaved family made the following arguments.

Accordingly, the hospital that became the defendant in this medical litigation sought to establish that the surgery had been justified and that its duties of management and explanation had likewise been faithfully fulfilled, and to this end retained a medical litigation specialist attorney.

Article 24-2 of the Medical Service Act provides that, in the case of surgery or a procedure that may cause a serious risk to the patient's life or body, the physician must sufficiently explain its necessity, method, side effects, and alternative treatments, and obtain written consent.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant hospital had failed to properly comply with this procedure, so that the patient and the guardian did not sufficiently understand the risks of the surgery.

If it were proven that the medical staff had neglected the explanation process, liability for damages could be found on the ground of breach of the duty to explain.

A medical practitioner has a duty of care to provide the best possible treatment and management, taking the patient's condition into account, so that complications do not arise.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant hospital had not properly monitored the patient's condition after the surgery and had failed to take necessary measures, resulting in death.

If such circumstances of negligent management were found to be true, the hospital could be judged to be at fault, and liability for damages could arise.

The plaintiff alleged that the cholecystectomy itself had been unnecessary and yet had been performed in an unreasonable manner.

In response, the medical specialist attorney proved that the patient's gallbladder polyp was close to the threshold for recommending surgery and that the risk of gallbladder cancer was considerably high for a patient taking immunosuppressants.

In particular, through the above analytical materials, the attorney emphasized that the decision to perform surgery had been a medically reasonable and unavoidable measure.

The plaintiff alleged that inadequate patient management after the surgery had aggravated the patient's complications, ultimately resulting in death.

In response, the medical specialist attorney confirmed through the records that regular blood tests, dialysis, and drug treatment after the surgery had all been carried out normally, and submitted these to the court.

In addition, the attorney supported, with expert medical opinion, that the multiple organ failure that was the direct cause of death was a complication that could naturally arise from the patient's underlying disease.

Ultimately, the attorney persuasively proved that this had been an unavoidable course of the disease rather than poor management.

The plaintiff alleged that, before the surgery, the patient and the guardian had not been given a sufficient explanation of the risk of complications and of alternative treatments.

In response, the medical specialist attorney proved that the patient and the guardian had personally signed the consent form after receiving an explanation of the necessity of the surgery, the possibility of complications, and alternative treatment methods.

In particular, the consent form specifically described major complications such as bleeding, infection, and organ failure, and a statement that the medical staff had personally provided the explanation had also been secured.

Through this, the attorney clearly proved that the duty to explain had been faithfully fulfilled.

The fact that a patient's death or complications occurred does not, by itself, immediately establish negligence on the part of the medical staff.

In such cases, the key issues become whether the necessity of the surgery and the management process were reasonable and whether the duty to explain and the duty of care were sufficiently fulfilled.

Daeryun LLC has many attorneys who possess both medical knowledge and legal knowledge.

By forming a task force for each case, the firm precisely examines the patient's condition and whether the medical staff was negligent, and, when necessary, can also handle the collection and analysis of evidence through collaboration with evidence investigation experts.

If you need to respond to a claim for damages (medical malpractice), please request consultation of your case through 🔗Legal Consultation Reservation.