A court has ruled that a university hospital facing a 200 million won ($151,200) lawsuit for paraplegia due to medical mistakes is not liable for indemnity.

The Seoul Central District Court recently dismissed a claim for damages filed against a university for paraplegia due to the negligence of medical staff at its hospital.

The patient, initialized as "A," underwent a weekly cervical interforaminal epidural steroid injection and laminectomy at the university hospital, identified as just "B," in April 2020.

Before A visited B, A had been diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis, spinal myelitis, and cervical myelopathy at another hospital and underwent neuroplasty, partial laminectomy, and steroid treatment. Still, her symptoms did not improve, so A visited B. However, the treatment at B was ineffective, and she was discharged after about three months.

While A received treatment at B, she complained of gait disturbance and a sense of placebo, and her legs felt heavy and painful even after the steroid injection. In May, she showed symptoms of being paralyzed.

After being discharged from the hospital, A claimed that her paraplegia was caused and aggravated by the negligence of the medical staff at B and demanded damages of 218.15 million won plus overdue interest.

However, the court rejected her claims that the steroid surgery was inappropriate and that the medical workers performed an unnecessary hysterectomy.

"The medical staff of Hospital B tried various treatments, including high-dose steroid therapy, for six days after patient A's visit. When her symptoms did not improve, they performed a steroid injection. It is difficult to say that the medical staff performed unnecessary surgery without sufficient examination," the court said.

The doctor's orders submitted by Hospital B specifically identified the types and doses of drugs used at the time of the surgery, and the results of the court's examination indicate that the surgery was performed appropriately, the court added.

It also judged there was no reason to conclude that the steroid injection was the cause of Patient A's paralysis, noting that the medical examiners attributed the lower limb muscle weakness to the spinal cord infection that predated her visit to Hospital B.

“Although A had complained of symptoms since the steroid injection, she had been treated for related symptoms before she visited Hospital B. She showed difficulty walking and weakness at the time of her first visit to Hospital B," the tribunal said.

Three days after the steroid injection and hysterectomy, the results of the lower extremity strength test were not particularly worse than before, the court continued, pointing out that the fact that A complained of these symptoms does not mean that the steroid injection weakened her lower extremity strength.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that Hospital B conducted an unnecessary laminectomy by misreading the MRI results, adversely affecting paraplegic symptoms. It noted that Hospital B saw "suspected spinal cord inflammation or spinal cord tumor" and could not be seen as misreading only because a lesion was not confirmed later.

“Ms. A had already been diagnosed with spinal cord infection before visiting Hospital B and was not in remission despite several treatments. It is also difficult to distinguish between spinal cord infection and spinal cord tumor based on MRI images when suspicious lesions are identified," the tribunal said.

"The doctors administered steroid injections to treat the spinal cord infection, and when there was no improvement, they performed a laminectomy to confirm the presence of a spinal cord tumor," the court said in conclusion. “A spinal cord tumor is a life-threatening condition. Surgery is the best treatment, even though it comes with risks. It cannot be considered negligent in performing a laminectomy to identify and treat a spinal cord tumor."

The court also rejected Ms. A's claim that the doctors failed to identify and treat the cause of her paralysis promptly and failed to fulfill their pre-operative duty of care. Accordingly, all of Ms. A's claims were dismissed.