In a Propofol Investigation, What Matters More Than the Number of Doses Is the 'Records and Purpose'

Propofol is classified as a psychotropic drug under the Act on the Management of Narcotics, and is strictly controlled in medical settings. Not only administration deviating from medical purposes, but even a simple omission in reporting usage records or poor management of medical records, can lead to heavy criminal liability.

The core issue in such propofol cases lies not in the dosage but in the trigger for administration and the purpose of management. Investigative agencies cross-verify not only the number of doses, the interval between procedures, and whether the patient made repeated visits, but also whether the reporting details in the Narcotics Information Management System (NIMS) exactly match the entries in the medical record. Even if the patient had an actual medical need, if the records are poor or the reporting details do not match the medical record, it may be regarded as illegal diversion for profit or a breach of the management duty, becoming a target of judicial processing.

In a case actually handled, this issue of poor management and the consistency of reporting became a main point. A dermatology clinic director used propofol in the course of performing sedation procedures on a particular patient several times, but some narcotics-handling reports were omitted from the medical record, so the person was booked on suspicion of violating the Narcotics Management Act.

At the time, the patient had been receiving cosmetic procedures accompanied by skin irritation and pain, in which controlling movement during the procedure was important, and a situation in which sedation anesthesia was unavoidably required for the patient's safety and the quality of the procedure. The Supreme Court, too, recognized the legitimacy of a medical act by comprehensively considering the patient's condition, the necessity of the procedure, and the circumstances of administration, even for a cosmetic-purpose procedure.

Accordingly, the strategy for this case was focused on 'proving medical necessity' and 'objective demonstration of the records.' Cross-checking the medical record, the handwritten ledger, and the NIMS data, the flow of administration details and the consistency of the records were re-examined from the ground up. In particular, meticulously examining even fine details such as the circumstances of payment records arising on dates with no medical record, whether the patient's weight was measured, and the structure of the EMR (electronic medical record) system, efforts were concentrated on proving that it was merely a simple administrative error with no unlawful intent involved. As a result, medical necessity and the consistency of records were recognized, and a finding of no charge (non-referral) was drawn out at the police stage.

As such, propofol cases can lead to greatly differing outcomes depending on the manner of the early response. If you receive contact from an investigative agency, rather than panicking and hastily explaining, you should, to preserve the credibility of your early statements, quickly secure the relevant materials and first check whether they mutually match. If you give statements relying on memory without objective record confirmation, a discrepancy may arise with materials secured later, which risks casting doubt on the credibility of your statements and placing you in an unfavorable situation.

Attorney Yoon So-young of Daeryun LLC said, "Since how one proves medical necessity and the entire management process determines the direction of the case, it is important to respond systematically from the early investigation stage with the assistance of a specialized attorney experienced in narcotics cases," adding, "One must remember that a single line in a chart or a single log record can determine the conclusion of a medical case."

[Read Full Article]
In a Propofol Investigation, What Matters More Than the Number of Doses Is the 'Records and Purpose' (Go to Article)