Supreme Court Confirms Suspended Sentence with Probation for Doctor in Case of Patient Burned Due to Nurse Assistant's Negligence During Surgery

A doctor's guilt was confirmed for causing burns to a patient during surgery using an electrosurgical unit due to improper management and supervision of a nursing assistant.

According to the legal community on the 21st, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) upheld the original ruling sentencing Mr. A, who was charged with professional negligence causing injury and violation of the Medical Service Act, to eight months imprisonment with a two-year probation and a fine of 500,000 KRW. Imprisonment here refers to detention in prison similar to a prison sentence, but without compulsory labor.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

The court stated the reason for dismissing the appeal was that "there was no error affecting the judgment such as violating the rules of logic and experience in the lower court's decision, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, misunderstanding the legal principles regarding breach of duty of care and causation in professional negligence causing injury, or the establishment of the Medical Service Act violation."

Mr. A, who operated a plastic surgery clinic in Gangnam, Seoul, was indicted in April 2018 for causing burns requiring eight weeks of treatment to a woman in her 30s during breast augmentation and arm liposuction surgery by violating his professional duty of care.

A nursing assistant attached the patch of the electrosurgical unit to the patient, but by not following the usage guidelines and attaching it to the wrong area, the patch fell off during surgery, causing sparks from the electric current that resulted in third-degree burns on the patient's ankle and foot.

The prosecution charged Mr. A with professional negligence causing injury, holding him responsible for failing to properly manage and supervise the nursing assistant's work.

Mr. A had a professional duty of care to either personally confirm that the patch was firmly attached to appropriate areas such as the calf (which has no bone and is rich in muscle), abdomen, thigh, or upper arm, or if delegating the patch attachment to the nursing assistant, to educate them on the proper attachment sites of the electrosurgical unit patch and the risk of burns, and to supervise to ensure the patch was properly attached so that the patient's skin and the patch would not separate. However, he neglected this duty and proceeded with surgery while the nursing assistant had attached the patch to the shin area where bone is present, which the prosecution judged as a violation of the duty of care.

Additionally, the prosecution applied charges against Mr. A for violating the Medical Service Act by failing to properly record the diagnosis and treatment details of the surgery and the fact that the patient suffered burns during the operation in the medical records.

In court, Mr. A argued that the accident was likely caused by a malfunction of the electrosurgical unit and that patch attachment was the nursing assistant's duty, so he bore no criminal responsibility.

On the other hand, the nursing assistant testified in court, "I was never specially trained by Mr. A on where to attach the patch. I was taught that it just needed to touch the skin."

The first-instance court recognized Mr. A's professional negligence causing injury, stating, "As a doctor, he neglected his duty of care, resulting in a medical accident," and sentenced him to imprisonment with probation and a fine of 500,000 KRW for violating the Medical Service Act.

The court found negligence in Mr. A's failure to sufficiently educate the nursing assistant on the patch attachment sites and methods, and in not verifying during surgery whether the patch was properly attached, and recognized a causal relationship between Mr. A's negligence and the patient's injury.

Regarding the Medical Service Act violation, Mr. A claimed, "The overall surgical progress and details, as well as the fact that burns occurred during surgery, are recorded in the nursing records, so there was no failure or false entry in the medical records."

However, the court stated, "Although the defendant was the surgeon who performed this surgery, he did not prepare the medical records typically created when a doctor diagnoses and operates on a patient, such as surgical records, doctor's notes, or progress notes, and only began writing progress notes after completing the surgery. While there are nursing records prepared by the nursing assistant related to this surgery, those documents only contain the surgical details observed and performed from the nursing assistant's perspective. Considering that the nursing assistant's medical knowledge cannot be equated with that of a doctor who has received specialized education and training, the contents of those documents alone cannot be regarded as sufficiently detailed information on the patient's condition and treatment progress as confirmed and judged by the doctor to assess the appropriateness of medical treatment."

Mr. A appealed, but the appellate court and the Supreme Court upheld the same judgment.

Although Mr. A's imprisonment sentence was confirmed, under the Medical Service Act before its amendment, a doctor's license is revoked only if a sentence of imprisonment or higher is confirmed for violating medical-related laws, so there is no issue with him continuing to practice medicine.

The amended Medical Service Act, effective from November last year, expanded the scope of license revocation to cover all crimes, but professional negligence causing injury is recognized as an exception.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.