Pediatrician Who Administered Vaccine One Day Past Expiration... Supreme Court: "License Suspension Too Harsh"

"Difficult to conclude that professional dignity was 'seriously' damaged"
Supreme Court overturns ruling in lawsuit challenging doctor's license suspension and remands case

The Supreme Court has ruled that a doctor's license cannot be suspended for administering a vaccine to an infant one day after its expiration date. The court said the act could be considered damaging to the dignity of a medical professional, but it was difficult to conclude that it amounted to “conduct that seriously damages professional dignity,” which is grounds for suspending a license.

The Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News

According to legal sources on November 15, the Supreme Court’s First Division, with Justice Cheon Dae-yeop presiding, recently overturned a lower court ruling against Kim, a pediatrician who had sued the Minister of Health and Welfare to cancel a license suspension, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

In January 2023, Kim administered a hepatitis B vaccine to a six-month-old infant one day after its expiration date. Two hours after the vaccination, Kim discovered that the vaccine had expired, immediately contacted the infant’s guardian to explain what had happened, and advised them to have the infant vaccinated again. Fortunately, the infant was found to have suffered no particular health problems or side effects.

However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare suspended Kim’s license, arguing that using an expired medication constituted an “unethical medical practice” under the Medical Service Act. After a court overturned the original three-month suspension as an abuse of discretion, the ministry halved the suspension period and imposed a new suspension of one month and 15 days. Kim then filed another lawsuit seeking to overturn the penalty.

The first trial ruled against Kim. It found that “prescribing a medication past its expiration date carries a risk of harming a patient’s health in itself and seriously undermines professional standing,” and that “reducing the suspension period by half did not constitute an abuse of discretion.”

The second trial also dismissed Kim’s appeal, saying that the incident “significantly betrayed the trust that medication could be used safely under a doctor’s guidance.”

The Supreme Court, however, reached a different conclusion. It held that even if the use of expired medication is listed in the standards for administrative sanctions, the circumstances of each case must be examined separately and rigorously to determine whether the conduct meets the legal requirement for suspending a license: “seriously damaging professional dignity.”

The Supreme Court noted that “the vaccine was administered before a full day had passed from its expiration date, no side effects occurred, and Kim immediately contacted the guardian and took follow-up measures.” It added that, “considering that the violation occurred only once and resulted not from intent but from a sorting error by an employee responsible for managing the medication, it is difficult to characterize the conduct as seriously damaging the dignity of a medical professional.” The court overturned the lower court ruling and remanded the case.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.