Objective: From November 30, 2016, the Korean Government carried the revised Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Act into effect. Mediation will start automatically without agreements of the defendant, when the outcome of the patient was death, coma more than a month or severe disability. Cerebral aneurysm has a definite risk of bad outcome, especially in the worst condition. Any surgical intervention to this lesion has its own high risk of complications. Recently, Seoul central district court decided 50% responsibility of the doctors who made a rupture of the aneurysm during coiling (2015Ga-Dan5243104). We reviewed judicial precedents related to cerebral aneurysms in lawsuit using a web search.
Methods: We searched judicial precedents at a web search of the Supreme Court, using the key words, "cerebral aneurysm".
Results: There were 15 precedents, six from the Supreme Court, seven from the High Court, and two from district courts. Seven precedents were related to the causation analysis, such as work-relationship. Five precedents were malpractice suits related bad results or complications. Remaining three precedents were related to the insurance payment. In five malpractice precedents, two precedents of the Supreme Court reversed former two precedents of the High Court.
Conclusion: Judicial precedents on the cerebral aneurysm included not only malpractice suits, but also causation analysis or insurance payment. Attention to these subjects is needed. We also need education of the independent medical examination. To avoid medical disputes, shared decision making seems to be useful, especially in cases of high risk condition or procedures.
Keywords: Causality; Cerebral Aneurysm; Expert Testimony; Malpractice; Negotiating.