Court "The causal relationship between the procedure and death is not recognized, but the right to decide is violated."

Court "The causal relationship between the procedure and death is not recognized, but it infringes on the right to decide."

(Jeonnam Gwangju = Yonhap News) Reporter Jeong Hoe-seong = A hospital that did not directly explain the risks of cardiovascular expansion surgery to patients but only informed their guardians was negligent in violating the right to self-determination and was ordered to pay 'compensation' to the bereaved family.

Gwangju District Court Civil Division 3 Chief Judge Kim Yu-jin announced on the 6th that he had ruled in favor of some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by Mr. A's four bereaved family members for damages against a corporation operating a general hospital in the Gwangju area.

The court ruled that the hospital should pay 3.63 million won each to the surviving families and cover 20% of the legal costs.

Mr. A visited the hospital in October 2022 complaining of chest pain and underwent cardiovascular expansion surgery.

Mr. A, who was found to have complications such as coronary artery dissection on the day of the procedure, underwent additional procedures immediately, and while being transferred to the intensive care unit for recovery, he suddenly fell into critical condition and died.

The bereaved family claimed that it was a medical accident, saying that the medical staff did not check whether the medication taken on a regular basis was administered on the day of the procedure, and that complications were not dealt with quickly because the procedure was decided on a holiday even though there were no urgent circumstances.

In addition, the lawsuit was filed claiming that the patient's right to make his own choice was violated by only the spouse explaining the risks and complications of the procedure.

The court concluded that there was no negligence or deviation from the medical staff's discretion in the preparation and method of the procedure, securing an emergency response system, and progress observation.

However, although the patient had the ability to make his own judgment and choice, it was judged that the necessity, risks, and complications of the procedure were not faithfully explained to the patient.

The court ruled, “It is insufficient to acknowledge that a causal relationship exists between the serious outcome of death due to unexplained cardiac arrest after the procedure in this case and the violation of the duty of explanation by the medical staff at the defendant hospital.”

At the same time, the scope of damages was limited to alimony for mental damage caused by violation of Mr. A's right to make decisions.