Medical community stunned by court order on doctor, hospital to compensate for dating-abuse victim’s death

After a victim of dating violence died while receiving emergency treatment at Chonnam National University Hospital, the district court held her doctor and the hospital jointly liable with her attacker.

The medical community reacted angrily to the decision, saying it put medical professionals on the same level as criminals.

In a recent appeal filed by the victim's bereaved family against the perpetrator, medical staff, and Chonnam National University Hospital, the Third Civil Division of the Gwangju High Court partially recognized their joint liability and ordered them to pay about 440 million won ($304,098) in damages and delayed interest, according to the medical community.

The high court also increased the compensation by about 80 million won from the lower court trial.

The deceased victim suffered injuries, including epidural hemorrhage, in October 2017 when she fell after being pushed by her boyfriend. She was taken to Chonnam National University Hospital to undergo emergency hematoma removal surgery but died from a central venous line piercing during the preparation.

The court found that the negligence of the anesthesiologist in charge of inserting the central line led to the victim’s death. It also recognized the hospital’s liability for failing to fulfill its duty to explain the process adequately.

In other words, the high court found that the doctor and the hospital should share liability with the assailant who assaulted and injured his girlfriend. The court held that the assault and battery committed by the victim’s boyfriend and the medical negligence of the doctor and hospital were “objectively related and joint.” However, it said the specific compensation ratio should be handled in a separate lawsuit.

The medical community was stunned.

On Friday, the Korean Emergency Medical Association (KEMA) released a statement expressing regret that the ruling “treated medical staff who did their best to treat the victim as the same criminal as the perpetrator of dating violence.”

It also said that the ruling would discourage future emergency care and surgery.

“Anyone with a brain hemorrhage that requires emergency surgery as a result of an assault is a critically ill patient with the potential to die. The perpetrator is, of course, the one who caused this,” the association said. “For a court to hold a healthcare provider liable, there must be a presumption that the victim would have survived if they had not encountered the healthcare provider.”

By the court's logic, it would also have held the medical staff responsible if they had failed to place a central line and the patient's blood pressure dropped during surgery and died, the association added.

The association also criticized the ruling on the hospital's liability for breach of duty of care, saying it was “arbitrary,” comparing it to “force the hospital to explain 4,000 possible medical conditions, including the possibility of death, to a patient with abdominal pain.”

“All procedures and treatments carry risks and complications. If the court punishes what happened inevitably, all patients with risk and complications will be unable to receive treatment at any medical center,” it said. “The sword of judgment wielded by a non-professional court is another ‘punishment’ for the medical community and a shortcut to abandoning treatment.”

The Seongnam Medical Association also issued a statement condemning the ruling.

“The court imposed the same level of joint liability as the perpetrator of the assault without scrutinizing the medical staff's judgment process. It is a dangerous ruling that shifts the responsibility for the outcome to the medical professionals and will undermine essential and emergency medical care,” the municipal medical association said.

It also called for the government and the National Assembly to take action, urging them to enact the “Special Medical Malpractice Act” as soon as possible and devise practical measures to protect essential and emergency medical care.

“We will respond strongly if institutional improvements are not made to protect medical professionals,” it said. “If the government and judiciary continue to ignore medical realities and impose excessive responsibilities on medical staff, the lives and safety of the public will be compromised.”