Hospital Claims Patient Chose to Get Stuck Between Bed and Wall, Sparking Outrage

A Seoul hospital is facing accusations of a "second victimization" after arguing in an appellate court that a patient who died trapped between a bed and a wall chose that position for safety.

Hae Sang Hospital, operated by the Korea Industrial Health and Environment Research Institute, submitted a brief to the Seoul High Court last month. The hospital claimed the patient's actions were "abnormal behavior of an alcoholic patient seeking a corner." It further argued that the patient, identified as Mr. Park, entered the narrow space between the bed and the wall out of a "safety-seeking psychology" to block perceived threats. "Forcing him out could have been perceived by the deceased as a "threat to his life," the hospital stated.

“

The victim's actions correspond to 'abnormal behavior of an alcoholic patient seeking a corner.'

The hospital also contended that in seclusion cases, emotional stability is prioritized over vital signs. "Waking a sleeping patient could have led to more dangerous situations for their emotional stability," the brief read. This defense comes after a lower court ordered the hospital to pay 128 million won (approximately $93,000) in damages to the patient's family in January. The court found the hospital negligent in observing the patient and that this negligence led to his death.

“

Forcing him out could have been perceived by the deceased as a 'threat to his life.'

CCTV footage shows Mr. Park, 58, was admitted to the hospital on April 18, 2024, after self-harming. He began showing signs of distress after midnight, banging on the door of his isolation room. At 2:12 AM the next day, while trying to move the bed, his lower body became trapped between the bed and the wall. He struggled for over two hours before his movements gradually ceased. He was discovered by medical staff at 5:55 AM and pronounced dead at 6:19 AM, just over eight hours after admission.

Lawyers representing victims in similar cases criticized the hospital's defense. Choi Jeong-gyu, a lawyer, stated that while legal representatives must act in their client's best interest, arguments that could constitute a "second victimization" of the patient require careful consideration. He expressed concern that such a defense, which denies responsibility rather than limiting it, could further wound the bereaved family.

“

Waking a sleeping patient could have led to more dangerous situations for their emotional stability.

The patient's son called the hospital's claims "wordplay" to avoid compensation. He argued that medical staff, aware of the room's narrowness, should have recognized the patient's distress from CCTV footage and intervened. The family also disputes the hospital's evidence, which included CCTV photos of the nurses' station taken two years after the incident, showing a nurse observing the monitors. The police initially decided not to charge the hospital director and a nurse with professional negligence resulting in death, but the family's appeal led to the case being sent to prosecutors. Prosecutors have requested further investigation into the nurse.

“

Arguments that could constitute a 'second victimization' of the patient require careful consideration.