Medical Negligence Defense Case | A Nursing Hospital Nurse, Occupational Negligence Causing Death, 'Non-Referral'

The client was a nurse working at a long-term care hospital who, after a patient's death, was subjected to a complaint by the bereaved family on charges of occupational negligence causing death.

On the day of the incident, the client checked on a patient who was suffering from phlegm, but because it was right after a meal and the condition was not severe, she reportedly did not perform suction (aspiration treatment).

About 20 minutes later, the patient was found without consciousness or breathing, and the client immediately performed emergency measures such as oxygen supply and suction, but the patient died.

The issue was that because the patient harmed in this case had signed a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) consent form, the client performed only emergency measures and did not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

In response, the bereaved family raised doubts about the effect of the DNR and filed a complaint against the client, asserting that there was negligence in the nurse's response.

Ultimately, the client, who came to face charges of occupational negligence causing death, requested legal assistance from a medical specialist lawyer.

In response, the attorney specializing in medical law established a strategy of denying all three requirements.

First, the attorney determined that the client had not been involved in preparing the DNR consent form and that omitting cardiopulmonary resuscitation in accordance with the handed-over medical records was a legitimate measure within the ordinary division-of-labor structure of the medical field.

The attorney also noted that emergency measures such as oxygen supply and suction were carried out immediately after checking the patient's condition, and that the judgment to refrain from suction was likewise a clinically reasonable decision.

Ultimately, the attorney built the defense strategy around the points that the client's judgment was within the scope of the duty of care and that it was difficult to conclude that there was a direct causal relationship with the patient's death.

The suspect, aware that the patient had signed a DNR consent form, performed emergency treatment excluding cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

In addition, the suspect was not involved at all in the signing of the DNR consent form, so even if there had been a procedural defect or a formal problem in the signing of the DNR consent form, it would have been difficult for the client to know this.

Accordingly, the medical specialist attorney, citing a Supreme Court precedent, argued that the suspect's judgment was justified in accordance with the usual division-of-labor structure and the principle of trust in the medical field.

Supreme Court, January 10, 2003, 2001Do3292 Judgment

The medical attorney established that, in light of the circumstances at the time, the client's omission of suction was a clinically reasonable judgment.

This judgment was a cautious approach based on medical judgment and experience, not a merely passive measure, and as a result made clear that it could not be concluded to be a breach of the duty of care.

In accordance with the DNR consent form, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was not performed, but the suspect carried out all the emergency measures possible at the scene.

Accordingly, the attorney persuasively developed the argument that the suspect's response was a sufficient measure appropriate to the situation, and that even including measures other than cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it is difficult to regard it as negligence.

Ultimately, the medical specialist lawyer emphasized that it was difficult to recognize a clear causal relationship between the client's judgment and the patient's death.

That is, the lawyer strongly argued that it could not be concluded that the client's measures had a direct effect on the death, and that the causal relationship, which is a requirement for criminal punishment, was not established.

The above case is one in which the client, who had come to face charges of occupational negligence causing death on the allegation that the victim died due to medical negligence, obtained a finding of no charge thanks to the assistance of a medical specialist lawyer.

Daeryun LLC has many lawyers, ranging from lawyers with actual medical careers to specialist lawyers with extensive experience in medical litigation.

In addition, through collaboration with specialist lawyers by field, a one-stop response is possible, extending even to medical-related criminal, administrative, and civil litigation.

If you need assistance with a matter such as a medical negligence case, please feel free at any time to entrust your case through a 🔗legal consultation booking.