課程：醫療與法律.pptx

國立高雄第一科技大學科技法律研究所 案例討論課程：醫療與法律 指導教授：周天 所長 報 告 人：碩專班二年級 9520708 孫慈和 CASE 13 HELLING v. CAREY 案例事實 原告為被告所治療的病人，因為身為眼科醫師的被告未能適時診斷並治療其所罹患之青光眼，致其造成永久的視力損傷，因而對被告提起醫療業務過失(Malpractice action )之訴。 案例事實 History(1) 1959 for myopia, nearsightedness. At that time she was fitted with contact lenses. September,1963, concerning irritation caused by the contact lenses. October, 1963 February, 1967; September, 1967; October, 1967; May, 1968; July, 1968; August, 1968; September, 1968; October, 1968. 案例事實 History(2) October 1968 consultation, the defendants considered the plaintiffs visual problems to be related solely to complications associated with her contact lenses. On that occasion, the defendant, Dr. Carey, tested the plaintiffs eye pressure and field of vision for the first time. This test indicated that the plaintiff had glaucoma. The plaintiff, who was then 32 years of age, had essentially lost her peripheral vision. 程序 In August of 1969, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that she sustained severe and permanent damage to her eyes as a proximate result of the defendants negligence. The trial court entered judgment for defendants following a defense verdict, the Court of Appeals, Division I, James, J., affirmed, and the patient petitioned for review. Morrison P. HELLING and Barbara Helling, Thomas F. CAREY and Robert C. Laughlin plaintiff 侵權行為 defendants Malpractice action the Court of Appeals affirmed Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. trial court entered judgment for the defendants following a defense verdict trial court 原告主張 (1)下級法院對於陪審團有關定義眼科醫師standard of care之採證標準有誤。 (2)下級法院關於該standard of care之採證標準無法保護原告免於受青光眼疾病之害。 (3)被告未能於早期對原告作眼壓試驗，以避免造成原告不可回復之傷害，為過失。 被告主張 對於40歲以下的病人，由於青光眼發病機會相當低，就眼科執業的標準而言，並無作常規眼壓試驗的規定，因此無需對於原告罹患該疾病的結果負過失責任。 專家證言 (1)該疾病於40 歲以下極少發生。 (2)就眼科執業的標準而言，對於40歲以下的病人，並無作常規眼壓試驗的必要。 (3)就眼科執業的標準而言，如果病人主訴與症狀顯示有懷疑是青光眼的可能時，則眼壓試驗是必須的。 爭點 被告依照眼科執業的標準，未能及時對於原告