ER death of patient with torn forehead returned to police for ‘further probe’

The prosecution, dealing with an incident in which a patient with a lacerated forehead died while seeking treatment at an emergency room, has returned the case to the police, saying it is necessary to conduct a supplementary investigation into suspected violations of the Emergency Medical Act.

According to the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine (KSEM), the Daegu District Prosecutor's Office decided to request a “supplementary investigation” into the case last Saturday. Earlier, the police sent six people—four emergency medicine specialists and two paramedics—from three emergency medical institutions in Daegu to the prosecution on suspicion of violating the Emergency Medical Act.

A request for a supplementary investigation is a procedure in which prosecutors request the police to secure additional evidence if they do not have enough legal evidence to prove a case.

The incident occurred in April last year when a patient who suffered a laceration to his temple at a Daegu psychiatric hospital died because he could not find an emergency room for treatment. The Daegu Metropolitan Police Department investigated the case and sent six medical workers from one local general hospital and two tertiary general hospitals to the prosecution without physical detention on Jan. 22 on suspicion of violating the Emergency Medical Act.

The police determined that the medical workers were not guilty of gross negligence because it was unclear which hospital was responsible for the patient's death, and there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges.

An autopsy by the National Forensic Service determined that the cause of death was “excessive bleeding due to lacerations,” but the police believed that the medical workers refused emergency medical care “without justification.

KSEM protested the police decision, saying that the police treated the medical staff as criminals and conducted an unreasonable investigation even though the medical workers “justifiably refused to provide emergency medical care” because they could not provide proper emergency medical care. The society pointed out that medical judgment dictated that specialized treatment was necessary. Still, it was not feasible, so transferring the patient to another hospital was the best course of action.

In response to the prosecution's decision to request a supplementary investigation, Lee Kyung-won, a public affairs officer at the KSEM, said, “We hope that the prosecution will make a “not guilty” or “acquittal” decision in the future based on the correct medical facts and the Ministry of Health and Welfare's “Guidelines for Justification of Refusal of Medical Treatment under the Emergency Medical Act.”

The society added that legal and institutional improvements, such as exempting criminal penalties and limiting the maximum amount of civil compensation, are also essential to protecting the lives, safety, and health of the public.