"Concerns Over Disruption in Court Medical Assessments Amid Resident Doctors' Resignation Crisis"

Published 20 Mar.2024 15:00(KST)

Many Medical Cases Remain Unsolved for Long Periods
Physical Examinations and Others Pushed to Lower Priority

"Since the resignation crisis of residents, no dates for physical evaluations have been scheduled. If the residents' resignations prolong, there is concern that the schedule for related lawsuits requiring physical evaluations may be disrupted."

The courts and legal industry are on high alert over recent collective actions by residents and medical school professors. Delays in handling medical cases could negatively impact the speed of trials. A month after residents began leaving hospitals in protest against medical school quotas, medical school professors have also decided to join the resignation wave, raising concerns that the court's requests for evaluations may be deprioritized.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Meanwhile, the residents' organization, the party involved, has announced plans to file administrative lawsuits and constitutional complaints, indicating that the 'medical crisis' is spreading to the courts and the Constitutional Court.

Long-standing unresolved medical cases may be further delayed

Medical cases requiring medical evaluations are complex and contentious, resulting in many long-standing unresolved cases. Delays in expert evaluations inevitably extend trial periods.

According to the Seoul Central District Court, the number of medical-specialized cases pending before single-judge panels was △275 in 2020 △273 in 2021 △273 in 2022, rising to 296 last year and reaching 306 as of June 13 this year. The number of unresolved cases in the medical-specialized collegiate panels of the same court was 86 as of last year. This decrease is partly due to the civil jurisdiction of collegiate panels changing to cases exceeding 500 million KRW in value. The unresolved cases in collegiate panels were △164 in 2020 △156 in 2021 △113 in 2022, accumulating over 100 cases.

Given this situation, some courts have decided to increase medical evaluation fees to minimize the time required for evaluations. On May 19, the Seoul Administrative Court revised its internal regulations within the Supreme Court's guidelines to allow increased medical evaluation fees based on the number of evaluation items requested from hospitals and the difficulty of the evaluation.

'Medical evaluations' are divided into physical evaluations and medical record evaluations. Physical evaluations are conducted when the court decides to adopt an evaluation, either ex officio or upon a party's request, considering the matter requires an evaluation. The evaluator (evaluation agency and attending physician) is randomly selected through an evaluation selection computer program and commissioned. Medical record evaluations may also be commissioned to the Korean Medical Association Medical Evaluation Institute and the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency.

The problem lies with 'physical evaluations.' When residents resign, general specialists or medical school professors find it difficult to prioritize medical practice, so court evaluation requests inevitably become lower priority.

The legal community points out that delays in medical case evaluations under the current circumstances are a natural consequence.

A judge from a district court said, "In the current situation where residents and professors say they cannot work, it is natural that responses to requests for medical record evaluations, which are crucial evidence in medical case trials, will be delayed," expressing concern that "this will ultimately lead to trial delays."

A lawyer specializing in medical cases also said, "Although the author of medical records is often listed as a professor, in many cases, residents actually write them. The longer the residents' absence lasts, the more burdensome it will be for professors to accept evaluation commissions, which are not their primary duties."

The issue of residents filing administrative lawsuits against the Ministry of Health and Welfare indicates that confusion in the medical field shows no signs of easy resolution. On the 19th, the residents' organization filed a cancellation lawsuit and a request for suspension of execution against the Minister of Health and Welfare at the Seoul Administrative Court, challenging the decision to increase admission quotas. They also plan to file a constitutional complaint soon, arguing that the government's measures infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedom of occupational choice.

Attorney Jinseok Cho (43, 2nd Bar Exam), providing legal advice to the residents, stated, "The government's orders prohibiting collective actions, strikes, work commencement, maintaining medical services, and rejecting resignation letters are intended to completely silence the residents' voices and may themselves be unconstitutional and illegal. These administrative orders excessively restrict essential aspects of individual occupational freedom, and the residents or young doctors subject to these orders are considering filing constitutional complaints due to the high risk of unconstitutionality and illegality."

Guilt or innocence depends on whether the strike was forced

In past cases of medical collective actions followed by judicial proceedings, the verdicts varied depending on whether members were forced to participate. In opposition to the government's 2000 separation of prescribing and dispensing medicines and the 2014 promotion of telemedicine and for-profit hospitals, the then Korean Medical Association presidents who led collective actions were prosecuted for violating the Medical Service Act and other charges. Former KMA president Jaejung Kim, who led the 2000 strike, was sentenced to one year in prison with a two-year probation, confirmed by the Supreme Court, while former president Hwan-gyu Noh, prosecuted for leading the 2014 collective strike, was acquitted.