兩岸醫療糾紛之處理法制比較－以訴訟上舉證責任為中心

Study of Medical Disputes between Taiwan and China: Focusing on Burden of Proof in Litigation

10.6868/HKLR.201812_(65).02

謝榮堂(Jung-Tang Shieh)

醫師法定診療義務 ； 疏失 ； 過失 ； 舉證責任 ； 舉證責任轉換 ； 舉證責任減輕 ； 證明妨礙 ； 表見證明 ； 證明度降低 ； 舉證責任反置 ； 事實說明自己法則 ； 重大醫療瑕疵原則 ； 可完全控制之危險原則 ； Physician's Statutory Duties ； Missed ； Fault ； Burden of Proof ； Burden of Proof Conversion

華岡法粹

65期（2018 / 12 / 01）

41 - 72

繁體中文

病人或其家屬對於醫療不良結果或期待落差等等因素，對醫師或醫院提起訴訟請求賠償損害，依據不同訴訟種類與程序，就有關醫療之疏失、醫師或醫院或其履行輔助人相關過失，以及醫療瑕疵與損害間之因果關係等三項構成要件，而有不同舉證責任分攤。訴訟原則上，主要應該由原告為之，由於病人與醫師或醫院間，專業與資訊不對等，訴訟實務應儘量合理正當分配舉證責任，尤其應適度減輕及合理轉換原告舉證負擔。蓋病人可能是因為醫師或醫院之重大醫療疏失而受有損害，於此情形下，則適用舉證責任轉換，但僅限於民事訴訟，刑事訴訟無此問題。

A patient or his family members mayhave filefiled a lawsuit against the doctor or hospital for damages due to, such as unexpected medical results or unsatisfied expectationsexpectation of drop. The three constitutive elements for such litigation that determine the appointed burden of proof include, theaccording to different litigation types of litigation and procedures, negligence in relation to the medical treatment, the fault of the doctor or the hospital or its performing contractual assistant, and the causal relationship between medical fault and damages. There are three constitutive elements, such as the causal relationship between medical expenses and damage, and there are different burdens of proof. As a general rule in litigationIn principle, the plaintiff should have the burden of proofbe responsible for this. Bbecause the professional and informationeducation and experience are not equal between the patient and the doctor or the hospital, and the litigation practice should allocate the burden of proof as reasonable and reasonable as possible. In particular, the burden of the plaintiff's burden of proof should be moderately reduced and reasonably convertedshifted. WhenCovering the patient's damages is may be caused by a major substantial medical malpractice of the doctor or hospital. In this case, the conversion shift of the burden of proof is applicable. However, but it is limited only applicable to civil and not to criminal litigations. lawsuits. Criminal proceedings do not have this problem.

1. 吳俊穎,楊增暐,林家琪,宋佳玲,陳榮基(2016)。論不證自明原則暨表見證明於我國醫療民事訴訟之適用性。國立中正大學法學集刊，50
   連結：
2. 陳聰富(2010)。醫療訴訟舉證責任－最高法院 98 年度台上字第 276 號民事判決評釋。法令月刊，61(4)
   連結：
3. 楊秀儀(2002)。病人，家屬，社會：論基因年代病患自主權可能之發展。臺大法學論叢，31(5)
   連結：
4. Bandering, Michael(2015).Der Allgemeinarzt,37(15),74-75.
5. 小島武司,陳剛（譯）,林劍鋒（譯）,段文波（譯）(2006)。自律型社會與正義的綜合體系－小島武司先生七十華誕紀念文集
6. 民事訴訟法研究基金會(1993)。民事訴訟法之研討
7. 呂綺珍(2004)。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所。
8. 沈冠伶(2007).民事證據法與武器平等原則.元照.
9. 林誠二(2000).民法債篇總論－體系化解說.瑞興圖書.
10. 邱聰智(2000).醫療過失與侵權行為.五南.
11. 姜世明(2008).舉證責任與證明度.新學林.
12. 姜世明(2009).新民事證據法論.新學林.
13. 許振東(2002)。從舉證責任的倒置看醫療糾紛的問題。台灣醫界雜誌，45(6)
14. 陳榮宗(1979).舉證責任分配與民事程序法.自版.
15. 陳榮基(1993).台灣醫療糾紛的現況與處理.健康文化.
16. 陳聰富(2007)。美國醫療過失舉證責任之研究。政大法學評論，98
17. 黃丁全(2000).醫事法.元照.
18. 詹森林(2007)。德國醫療過失舉證責任之研究，醫療過失舉證責任之比較。臺北大學法學論叢，63

1. 李詩應(2020)。關懷式調解作為複雜型態爭議解決模式之探討－以日本醫療爭議為例。華岡法粹，69，251-308。