The plan was to reach a settlement tomorrow and then hold a press conference, but today the government contacted the court and said that while a settlement is possible under the current proposal, it would be difficult to reach a settlement tomorrow due to settlement procedures and other issues.
Tomorrow's hearing will only involve confirming the terms of the settlement, and the settlement will be finalized at the hearing after next.

Accordingly, the press conference will also be postponed to the date after the next scheduled date.

During this time, settlement negotiations were underway at the High Court.

If the defendant accepts the current settlement proposal, the settlement will be reached at the next hearing.

If they do not accept it, a judgment will be issued.

The first hearing of the High Court took place on May 21, 2026.

During the deadline, we submitted the appeal, the statement of grounds for appeal, and the medical opinions of three doctors as evidence.
The government has submitted a written response.
This concludes the appeal trial, and discussions regarding a settlement will now take place.
We will consider the settlement proposal and present it by the deadline, and the government is expected to provide its opinion on the settlement proposal by the next meeting.

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.