病歷之損害賠償事件案：病歷所有權與開示義務【學習式判解評析】 試閱
The Damages Case Involving Medical Records: The Ownership and Disclosure Obligations Concerning Medical Records
本文以「病歷之損害賠償事件」為分析核心，探討病歷所有權與病歷開示義務之法律性質。法院於一、二審均認為醫療法未規定醫療機構歇業時有通知病患或交付病歷之義務，並以未造成病患健康權損害為由，駁回病患之請求。然而本文認為，病歷雖以醫療機構名義保存，其紙本屬醫療機構所有，但病歷所載之醫療資訊屬病患之人格權範疇，應受個人資料保護法之保障。病歷中所反映之醫療資訊，關乎病患之自主權及知情權，故病歷之內容應屬病患可控制之個資，而非醫師之私有資訊。本文進一步從比較法觀點分析日本實務發展從否定病歷開示權，至肯認病歷開示義務為醫療契約附隨義務之演變，顯示醫療資訊權已人格化。臺灣應以此為借鏡，於醫療法中明定病患之資訊請求權，並建立具體病歷開示程序，使病患資訊權、人格權及醫病信賴關係得以兼顧。
This paper examines the legal nature of ownership and disclosure duties regarding medical records through a Taiwanese damages case. It argues that although the physical record belongs to the medical institution, the information it contains constitutes the patient’s personal data and personality right, protected under the Personal Data Protection Act. By comparing Japanese jurisprudence—from early denial to later recognition of the disclosure duty as an ancillary contractual obligation—the study highlights the personalization of medical information rights. It concludes that Taiwan should codify patients’ informational rights and establish clear procedures for medical record disclosure to balance autonomy, personality rights, and medical trust.
070-086
