▲ Short track 진 Noh Jin-gyu's Youngjung photo


A ruling has emerged that doctors and hospitals have some responsibilities if they do not properly explain and recommend aggressive testing methods to patients with suspected malignancies.

Part 13 of the Uijeongbu District Civil Agreement (Judge Gyu-yeon Choi) announced today (10th) that three survivors of short track athlete Noh Jin-gyu, who had died of bone sarcoma, won some plaintiffs in lawsuits against A and B hospitals.

Roh's parents and older sister claimed between 20 and 150 million won each for doctors A and B hospitals for treatment expenses and alimony, but the judges admitted negligence for only one of the three diagnoses that raised the issue, each for alimony. He was sentenced to pay 5 million to 20 million won.

According to the court, Mr. Roh went to a private hospital in September 2013 and identified a tumor on the left shoulder blade.

I was diagnosed with a suspected benign giant cell tumor, but I was told that it might be malignant osteosarcoma.

At the doctor's recommendation, Mr. Roh decided to go to the B hospital again.

In October of the same year, Dr. A synthesized the results of MRI image readings and the opinions of fellow doctors at the first treatment, and lowered the possibility of malignancy, and told Mr. Roh, "Let's remove the tumor after the February Winter Olympics is over."

At the time, Mr. Ro was planning to participate in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics short track relay.

A month later, after attending the convention, when the pain intensified, he went to a private hospital and confirmed that the tumor had grown. He visited doctor A again, but in the second medical examination, he said, "It is not malignant on histological examination but requires surgery after the Olympics."

Noh believed the doctor's words and participated in the Winter Universiade in December of the same year, but the pain continued and the cough continued as his shoulders swollen.

I visited hospital B and confirmed that the tumor had grown rapidly, but doctor A was also diagnosed as giant cell tumor in the third treatment.

During a training in January 2014, Noh broke his left elbow and visited the emergency room at Hospital B, and confirmed that the tumor had increased rapidly.

Medical staff at C Hospital checked for osteosarcoma during tumor removal surgery and removed some of Mr. Roh's shoulder blades.

Mr. Roh was admitted to C hospital for chemotherapy and was diagnosed with cancer metastasis to the lungs, and was operated again in May of the same year.

Afterwards, he received several more surgeries and chemotherapy, but Roh died on April 3, 2016 at the age of 24.

The direct cause of death was osteosarcoma.

Osteosarcoma varies according to age, but the 5-year survival rate is known to be 50-75%. To prevent metastasis, early diagnosis, chemotherapy, and extensive resection are needed.

The family members of Mr. Roh claimed that "doctor A had violated medical attention and missed the opportunity for his son to receive early diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcoma and did not properly explain it, so he could not select a diagnosis and treatment method."

Because of this, his son's survival was shortened, and he filed suits against Doctors A and B.

In the case of primary and secondary care, the judges found that there was no basis for acknowledging the negligence of doctor A because the diagnostic accuracy of the examination method at that time reached 84% and the results of MRI image reading and the opinions of fellow doctors matched.

However, as we confirmed that the tumor size has grown rapidly for the 3rd treatment, we decided that we should have given enough attention to the possibility of osteosarcoma, such as conducting a more accurate biopsy.

The judge said, "It seems that Doctor A should have focused on diagnosing osteosarcoma in a more aggressive way and explained and recommended it to Mr. Roh." If diagnosis and treatment were appropriate, Mr. Roh might have survived somewhat." I judged.

He added, "Although doctor A was aware of the possibility that the tumor was malignant, there was some possibility that Mr. Roh did not proceed to active biopsy and treatment prior to accurate diagnosis and treatment prior to participating in the Olympics."

However, the court said, "It is difficult to see that there is a significant causal relationship between doctor A's negligence and Mr. Roh's death, and that there is no delay in the diagnosis and treatment of osteosarcoma and that lung metastasis has not occurred." "It's hard to see."

(Photo = Yonhap News)