醫療事故損害賠償請求權之消滅時效：從兩件以消滅時效為核心爭點的實務案例談起

Period of Prescription in Medical Malpractice: Comment on Two Cases with Disputes on Prescription Period

醫療事故損害賠償請求權之消滅時效，向來是醫療訴訟中之重要爭點，然而我國實務關於其判斷常欠缺一致性標準。本文摘錄兩件以消滅時效為核心爭點之實務案例（「麻醉致植物人案」及「脊椎術後疼痛案」）為切入點，分析我國法院於「認定事實」及「適用法律」等面向之相關問題。而由此等問題所衍生之分岐見解，導致我國實務於醫療事故損害賠償請求權消滅時效之操作欠缺法安定性，不僅可能對於當事人發生突襲性裁判，就實務發展而言，亦欠缺事後檢證之可能性，而有礙於學理進步。改善之道，本文認為或可由三方向著手：其一，法院於認定事實時，應釐清醫療加害行為與醫療傷害之態樣，區分不同加害行為與損害類型，建立短期消滅時效之起算標準；其二，法院於適用法律時，針對醫療契約不完全給付損害賠償請求權之消滅時效，法院間宜統整其見解，論理上應以「不完全給付損害賠償請求權一律準用侵權行為之消滅時效」之見解較為可採，實務操作上亦較明確簡便；其三，參酌晚近比較法上修法趨勢，改革我國民法之消滅時效法制，朝向統一不同請求權之消滅時效、以及強化人身侵害損害賠償請求權之保護等方向修法，以謀根本解決爭議。

The period of prescription is a crucial element influencing the results of medical malpractice civil litigations. However, there is significant inconsistency among the courts in applying the rules of the prescription period. In this article, the author inspected two cases with disputes on the prescription period to exemplify these problems, including a case with vegetative state caused by an anesthetic accident and a case with recalcitrant pain after spine surgery. In the first case, the plaintiff sustained persistent vegetative state resulting from an anesthetic accident. This case demonstrated the discrepancies among the courts in determining the commencement of the prescription period in medical malpractice litigations. In the second case, the plaintiff suffered from recalcitrant pain after lumbar spine surgery. This case illustrated how the courts applied different prescription period rules depending on different claims initiated by the plaintiff, such as medical negligence or incomplete performance of the medical contract. Because of the divergences in determining the commencement of the prescription period and applying prescription period rules, it has been difficult for both the plaintiff and the defendant to predict the results of the lawsuits. These problems not only lead to surprising judgments for both parties occasionally, but also result in a lack of legal stability in the medical malpractice civil litigations. The author proposes three solutions for these problems. First, to delineate the commencement of the prescription period accurately, the types of medical negligence and medical injuries should be categorized with precision. Second, the courts should standardize the application of prescription period rules in different claims, namely claims for medical negligence and claims for incomplete performance of the medical contract. Third, the prescription chapter of the current Civil Code should be amended for a more succinct and clear-cut application of the prescription period rules and a better protection against personal injuries.