The Supreme Court ruled that medical staff are liable to compensate a patient who suffered side effects after lumbar disc surgery.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Suk-yeon) said on the 17th that on the 9th it overturned an appellate ruling that dismissed a damages claim filed by a person surnamed An against A, the director of the hospital that performed the surgery, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.
In Apr. 2018, An received treatment for herniated intervertebral disc (lumbar disc) at a hospital in Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi, but the symptoms did not improve, and in May that year the person underwent procedures including discectomy and decompressive laminectomy.
Afterward, An received treatment for weakness in both legs (incomplete paralysis of both lower limbs) and tingling, and, upon learning that the lumbar disc had recurred, underwent follow-up surgery at the hospital. When the symptoms still did not improve, the person was hospitalized for treatment at a large hospital in Seoul. After discharge, the person received rehabilitation therapy for back pain.
An filed a damages suit against A, saying, "The nerve damage was caused by surgical negligence, and the possible nerve damage from the surgery was not properly explained." The claimed amounts totaled 225.7 million won, including 7.13 million won in past medical expenses, 42.96 million won in future medical expenses, 140.64 million won in lost income, and 35 million won in consolation money.
An outside hospital evaluator assessed An as follows: "Both legs are weak and there are symptoms of cauda equina syndrome, such as urination and defecation disorders," and "it is considered to have arisen after the surgery."
In the first trial, the court ordered A to pay An 122.77 million won. The first trial panel found that A did not violate the duty to explain. However, it recognized medical negligence, saying, "It can be inferred that nerve damage occurred due to excessive traction of nerves during the surgery or instrument insertion manipulation." It added, "This surgery is highly complex, and the possibility of nerve damage cannot be ruled out even without unreasonable nerve root traction," and limited the hospital's liability for damages to 60%.
The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The appellate panel said, "It is not reasonable to infer medical negligence by the hospital's medical staff simply because An developed symptoms consistent with cauda equina syndrome due to the surgery." It cited the opinion of the medical record evaluator in this case, who said, "It is difficult to find grounds to conclude that there was negligence constituting a violation of a grave duty of care during the surgery by the hospital's medical staff solely because cauda equina syndrome and defecation disorders occurred after the surgery."
By contrast, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, saying, "On the record of this case, it is difficult to find any objective factor other than the surgery as the cause of the symptoms consistent with cauda equina syndrome that appeared in An." The court added, "It is difficult to find circumstances showing that the hospital's medical staff took necessary medical measures in a timely manner to prevent worsening of the side effects, such as reoperation to remove a hematoma."