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.

本网站上所有资料内容(「内容」)均属理慈国际科技法律事务所所有。本所保留所有权利,除非获得本所事前许可外,均不得以任何形式或以任何方式重制、下载、散布、发行或移转本网站上之内容。

所有内容仅供作参考且非为特定议题或具体个案之法律或专业建议。所有内容未必为最新法律及法规之发展,本所及其编辑群不保证内容之正确性,并明示声明不须对任何人就信赖使用本网站上全部或部分之内容,而据此所为或经许可而为或略而未为之结果负担任何及全部之责任。撰稿作者之观点不代表本所之立场。如有任何建议或疑义,请与本所联系。

作者

Katty
Katty