The Supreme Court overturned the judgment that the 61-year-old housewife, who died at the hospital's negligence, had no 'future income'.



The first part of the Supreme Court (Chief Judge Oh Kyung-mi) was the lower court that calculated the lost income (the future income lost by the victim) by considering the retirement age as 60 in the appeals trial filed by the family of the deceased person A against the director of a urology hospital and a university hospital. It was announced today (26th) that they broke the law and returned the case to the Seoul High Court.



A, who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a urology department in Gangnam, Seoul, from June to July 2013 for a stone in the right ureter, experienced symptoms such as fever and vomiting a few days after the fourth procedure.



After being transferred to the emergency room of the university hospital, Mr. A was treated for sepsis in the intensive care unit. After about 9 days, his condition improved, he removed the artificial airway and moved to a general ward.



But things soon got worse.



When Mr. A showed symptoms of tachypnea (hyperventilation), the doctor in charge said that the artificial airway should be intubated again, but the family said they would make a decision after listening to the doctor's explanation. My heart stopped.



The court of first instance did not accept the claims of the bereaved families that Mr. A died because the director of the urology department performed lithotripsy and neglected preventive measures and follow-up.



However, it was acknowledged as the hospital's negligence for not explaining the possibility of urinary tract infection or sepsis and how to deal with it after extracorporeal shock wave treatment.



In the case of the university hospital where Mr. A was later admitted, airway intubation was required at the time, and in an emergency, the doctor judged that he was responsible for delaying emergency treatment even though he did not need the consent of the guardian.



The question was how much to compensate.



The bereaved family claimed about KRW 110 million in lost income for 8 years and 6 months, saying, 'If there were no medical accidents, woman A, a woman, could have been engaged in housework for about 8 years and 6 months until she was at least 70'.



The first trial judged that the operating life, which is the basis for calculating lost income, was 60 years of age and said, "There is no data suggesting that the deceased had a job or income, and the plaintiff's claim alone is that there are special circumstances to admit that the deceased can operate beyond the age of 60. can't," he judged.



The amount of compensation was determined by calculating 40% of the defendants' liability to medical and funeral expenses and adding alimony.



It is 24 million won for a spouse and 6 million won each for four children.



The second trial reduced the liability for damages and ordered them to pay about 13 million won to their spouse and 5 million won to their children.



However, the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case again, decided that there was a problem in the lower court that did not recognize the lost income of the deceased person, and decided that the hearing should be repeated.



This is based on the 2019 Supreme Court decision by the Supreme Court, which adjusted the operating life of manual labor from 60 to 65.



The court said, "The trial court decided that the life of the deceased should be determined by the age of 60, which should be determined by examining the various circumstances underlying the rule of thumb to determine the period of use of manual labor or by examining whether there are special specific circumstances." It is my fault for not fulfilling the necessary psychology.”



(Photo = provided by Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)