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.

The second oral argument was held on June 29th.

On the date, discuss the future progress,

The defendant is expected to submit a counterargument to the complaint by the next date.

On the day of the meeting, those who participated in the hearing tour on the previous day also came to the hearing.

The presence of the audience will allow us to convey the high level of interest in this issue to the court and the defendant.

I was very grateful.

We appreciate your continued support.

We held a hearing tour on the first date.
Although it was announced just before the deadline,

We have received a reservation full of capacity.
After the hearing on the date, we held a debriefing session and an opinion exchange session.

We welcome people of all ages and backgrounds to participate.

We received honest feedback.

The debriefing session was attended by the two plaintiffs and the president of the company where the deceased Mr. A worked.

I was very encouraged by the warm messages from all of you.

I think we had a very good tour.

Thank you very much to everyone who participated.

Thank you for your continued support.

A court hearing tour accompanied by CALL4 staff will be held on May 18th.

A debriefing session will be held after the deadline, so please join us.

Please see here for the detail.

https://call4courthearingtour5.peatix.com/