- 英文摘要
- 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.
- 目次
- 壹、前言
貳、醫師診療義務
一、概說
二、違反說明義務之舉證責任
三、故意、「疏失」與「過失」之區別
參、醫療糾紛之法律屬性與適用
肆、舉證責任之主要功能與責任
一、舉證責任之意義
二、舉證責任規範
三、舉證責任分配
伍、舉證責任減輕與轉換
一、醫療糾紛舉證責任減輕
（一）證明妨礙
（二）表見證明
（三）證明度降低
（四）舉證責任反置
陸、法院見解與案例評析
一、舉證責任倒置之實務見解
（一）舉證責任倒置為現行法律規定
（二）舉證責任倒置不必然造成病人勝訴與醫師敗訴必然
（三）舉證責任的倒置僅適用於民事訴訟程序，並不適用於刑事訴
訟程序
（四）舉證責任倒置並未減輕法院裁判責任
二、醫療過失之因果關係舉證責任反置
三、大陸地區之法院實務見解
柒、結論
