The documents submitted to the appeal court have been uploaded.

Some of the evidence cannot be disclosed due to circumstances,

During the appeal hearing, we were able to receive written opinions from three doctors, including Dr. Yamazaki.

Thank you for your support in this matter.
I'm very sorry for reporting so late.

The Tokyo District Court issued a ruling the other day.

Unfortunately, the causal relationship with the death and negligence in not taking prompt medical treatment at the time of metastasis were denied, but negligence in the initial medical response was acknowledged.

The ruling stated that if a patient does not receive medical treatment that meets the medical standards and the medical treatment is grossly inappropriate, the doctor will be liable to pay damages for tort, and that this also applies to medical treatment provided in penal institutions.

This is obviously a legal requirement, but I think it was a good decision, given that it has sometimes been considered unavoidable that correctional facilities cannot provide the same level of medical care as the general public.

The deceased Mr. A was awarded 2.5 million yen in compensation for not receiving appropriate medical care, and the plaintiff's mother, who was entitled to half of the legal inheritance, was awarded 1.25 million yen in damages and 250,000 yen in attorney's fees, for a total of 1.5 million yen.

Although the ruling was commendable, we would like to contest the causal relationship with death and the negligence in not taking prompt medical action at the time of metastasis, and have therefore decided to appeal.

We would appreciate your continued support.

There was an error in the statement I had previously uploaded, so I uploaded it again.

Witness testimony from both sides was conducted on July 25th and 30th, respectively.

On the plaintiff side, the plaintiff himself, the cooperating doctor (the doctor who examined Mr. A in an external medical examination),

The defendant's side questioned two doctors from the Ministry of Justice (the doctor who examined Mr. A and another doctor).

The judge also asked many questions, which led to a thorough interrogation.

We would like to inform you about the preparation date for oral argument on April 22nd.

Because the court offered a good settlement,

We were considering a settlement clause based on this,

Unfortunately, the defendants responded that they were not willing to settle.

Therefore, we decided to conduct an interrogation in preparation for the verdict.

On the plaintiffs' side, the plaintiffs themselves and the cooperating doctor (the doctor who pointed out the possibility of cancer when the plaintiffs were in a penal institution as an outside doctor),

The defendant will question one doctor.

At the next hearing, a statement will be submitted for questioning.

An online preparatory hearing was held on February 20, 2025.

A settlement offer was made to the court before the hearing.

I can't reveal any details at this time, but

This was a positive settlement proposal for us, as the facts were established to a certain extent, similar to a judgment.

At the hearing, the plaintiff stated its opinion, and the defendant stated that they would consider it in the future.

The defendant will consider this matter at the next hearing.

The defendant will need about two months to consider the case, so the next hearing is scheduled for late April.

Thank you for your continued support.

I apologize for the late deadline report.

Let me report this to you all at once.

September 20, 2024

An online preparatory hearing was held.

The defendant has submitted Preparatory Document 5, Exhibit B23-32.

The defendant's claims were confirmed, and the plaintiff was asked to submit any additional medical literature regarding the prognosis of seminoma.

December 12, 2024

An online preparatory hearing was held.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs considered providing additional evidence regarding the prognosis of seminoma.

There was nothing in particular to be submitted.

It was confirmed that there were no additional claims or evidence presented by either the plaintiff or the defendant other than the witness testimony.

So the court said it wanted to present a settlement proposal,

A settlement offer is expected to be presented by the court at the next hearing.

The next hearing will be a report and explanation of the court's settlement proposal.

The seventh oral argument hearing was held on June 24, 2024.

A doctor's opinion was submitted by the defendant.

The defendant would like to submit a statement of claim based on this opinion,

As preparations will take time, the next hearing has been postponed to September.

I apologize for the delay in reporting this matter.

The fourth session was held on November 27, 2023.

By the deadline, the plaintiff submitted preparatory brief (2) and Exhibit B4, and the defendant submitted preparatory brief (2), Exhibit A25, and Exhibit B14-19.

Regarding the allegation that needle biopsy, which is contraindicated as stated by us,

It was decided to withdraw the procedure as it became clear that it was not a needle biopsy.

From the court:

-As of January 2020, it was confirmed that there was no dispute that there were findings suggestive of testicular cancer.

-Therefore, I believe the issue at stake will be what kind of tests should have been conducted at that time.

There was talk of them wanting to consider in the future the content of the inspection obligations that were in place at that time.

Also,

- The medical records sometimes show the cancer stage as I and sometimes as II. How should I interpret this?

- In accordance with this, we would like the plaintiffs to provide further details on the extent of the duty of care.

There was a story that...

In addition, since both sides have now gathered most of their arguments and evidence, we were instructed to consider whether or not to submit statements of opinion.

The fifth session was held on January 29, 2024.

By the deadline, we have confirmed that the Plaintiff's side had submitted preparatory brief (3) and Exhibit B5, and the Defendant's side had submitted preparatory brief (3) and Exhibits 20 and 21.

From the court:

-There are two points of contention: January 2020 (at the time of initial consultation) and September (at the time of metastasis).

-There is the issue of damages, but causation is the major point of contention.

- The defendant claims that this is an extremely difficult case to treat, but we would like the plaintiff to provide any additional evidence on this point.

There was a story that...

By the next hearing, the plaintiff will submit a doctor's opinion,

The defendant's side will now consider whether or not there is a doctor's opinion and what the schedule is.

Also, once all the doctors' opinions have been submitted, can we hold settlement talks?

If it becomes difficult, we will consider how to conduct the interrogation.

The sixth session was held on April 15, 2024.

The plaintiff submitted a doctor's opinion by the deadline.

The doctor from outside who treated Mr. A when he was in Saitama Detention House cooperated with us.

I was able to submit a thorough opinion.

We will also post comments, so please take a look.

Regarding future progress, the defendants are also planning to submit an expert opinion.

It is to be submitted by the next deadline.

Additionally, since we would like to add additional arguments depending on the content of the opinion, we have decided to submit a preparatory document if we are able to do so in time.

The third oral argument date was September 21, 2023.

The presiding judge was changed from Judge Sekine to Judge Kenji Mori.

During the deadline, the defendant submitted the preliminary document (1), which is a written rebuttal to the complaint.

The content was confirmed by the court.

From the presiding judge,

・When I read the defendant's written statement, it seems that he suspected testicular cancer at the time of the initial medical examination.

Is that so? Is it okay to not dispute that there were objective findings that should have led to suspicion of testicular cancer from the beginning?

- If so, according to the submitted medical literature, echocardiography and translucency confirmation are listed as tests for testicular cancer, but why was only cytology performed instead of these?

-Echo may have something to do with the equipment, but I think it was easy to check whether it was submitted.

・Is it okay to consider this case as a clinical theory in general medicine? In contrast, what is the relationship between insisting on the discretion of the facility director?

There were questions like.

From the defendant:

- There is no dispute that there were objective findings that should have led to suspicion of testicular cancer from the beginning.

・Confirm with your doctor regarding the test method.

・Due to the unique nature of penal institutions, we believe that the discretion of the facility director will affect the standard of medical care.

was the answer.

For the plaintiff side,

・What do you think about the defendant's argument that needle biopsy is not a contraindicated procedure?

・I would like the defendant to supplement his argument regarding the causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the death.

There was an instruction.

It was decided that both plaintiff and defendant would prepare documents by the next deadline, and discuss the future progress at the next deadline.

The new presiding judge seemed to have read the documents and evidence,

He asked a lot of accurate questions, and the case seemed to go smoothly.

The plaintiffs plan to listen to the doctor's opinion and prepare a written statement during the deadline.

On the day of the event, there were some people who participated in the listening tour on the first day.

I apologize for not being able to speak to everyone.

It is very reassuring for both the plaintiff and the defense team to have the hearing continued.

Thank you for your continued support.