August 2017

The primary complaint of patients shall be specified on medical records or excerpts of medical records, which is a necessary component of correct medical procedure undertaken by medical practitioners(Taiwan)

2016.07.12
Tiffany Wu

The Taiwan High Court rendered the 103-Yi-Shang-33 Civil Decision of July 22, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"). The decision held the primary complaint of patients shall be specified on medical records or excerpts of medical records, which is a necessary component of correct medical procedure undertaken by medical practitioners.

According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellees, who were the spouse and children of the patient, asserted that the patient had sought medical attention at the Appellant's premises due to recurrent hemorrhoids. After ordering the patient to be hospitalized for hemorrhoidectomy (hereinafter, the "Surgery"), the Appellant arranged for the patient to stay in a regular ward after the Surgery to continue recovery and treatment. However, after subsequently contracting necrotizing fasciitis as a result of hospital-acquired infection, the patient shortly died of cardiopulmonary failure and sepsis in the hospital the following day. A complaint was filed for damages since the attending surgeon of the patient committed medical negligence as he had failed to assess the diabetic history of the patient before the Surgery and elected to perform the Surgery while misjudging the danger of the Surgery, increasing the probability of patient to contract necrotizing fasciitis after the Surgery. The first instance decision was rendered in favor of the Appellees. An appeal was filed by the Appellant.

It was first pointed out in the Decision that the primary complaint of patients shall be specified on medical records or excerpts of medical records, which is a necessary component of correct medical procedure undertaken by medical practitioners

It was further pointed out in the Decision that the patient in this case had mentioned that he had no diabetic history before his hospitalization and the pre-hospitalization nursing assessment did not indicate such prior history. The patient also stated that he had no diabetic history in his pre-anesthesia assessment dated July 15, 2008 and signed the assessment for confirmation. Therefore, since the patient informed the attending surgeon on all occasions that he had no diabetic history and had no diabetic symptoms, the absence of the attending surgeon to administer other medical treatments meets reasonable medical practice. Therefore, it was held that there was no medical negligence in this case, and the Appellant's appeal was well-grounded. Hence, the first instance decision was reversed, and a decision was rendered against the Appellees.

本網站上所有資料內容(「內容」)均屬理慈國際科技法律事務所所有。本所保留所有權利,除非獲得本所事前許可外,均不得以任何形式或以任何方式重製、下載、散布、發行或移轉本網站上之內容。

所有內容僅供作參考且非為特定議題或具體個案之法律或專業建議。所有內容未必為最新法律及法規之發展,本所及其編輯群不保證內容之正確性,並明示聲明不須對任何人就信賴使用本網站上全部或部分之內容,而據此所為或經許可而為或略而未為之結果負擔任何及全部之責任。撰稿作者之觀點不代表本所之立場。如有任何建議或疑義,請與本所聯繫。

作者

Katty
Katty