Medical Liability and Damages Compensation: Supreme Court Ruling No. 21511/2024

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation No. 21511/2024 offers an interesting point of reflection on the liability of healthcare professionals in emergency situations, such as in cases of twin pregnancies. The Court addressed relevant issues concerning the actions of physicians and the causal link necessary for compensation for damages suffered by patients. In particular, the case at hand involved the death of one of the twins and the severe health conditions of the other, with the parents seeking compensation for the liabilities attributed to the healthcare professionals.

The Case and the Court's Decision

In the specific case, the Court examined the compensation claim filed by the parents of two twins, one of whom was stillborn and the other born with severe disabilities, following a delayed cesarean section. The parents argued that timely intervention could have saved the deceased twin and reduced the harm to the surviving twin. However, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had excluded the liability of the healthcare professionals for the death of the first twin, stating that the pathologies contracted would have led to his death regardless.

The Supreme Court of Cassation reiterated that it is incumbent upon the injured party to prove the causal link between the breach of duty and the damage suffered.

Liability and Burden of Proof

A central aspect of the ruling concerns the burden of proof. According to the Court, the parents, as plaintiffs, had the obligation to demonstrate not only the breach of duty by the healthcare professionals but also that such breach was the cause of the damage suffered. The Court therefore rejected the appellants' arguments, emphasizing how the technical consultancy had indicated that, even with timely intervention, the second twin would still have suffered severe harm.

Criticism of Damage Assessment

Another issue raised by the parents concerned the assessment of damages, which they believed had been carried out inadequately. The Court upheld the position of the lower courts, specifying that the equitable assessment of damages was legitimate, given the difficulties in determining the exact extent of the prejudice. Furthermore, the Court deemed the assessment of moral damages to be unfounded, as there was no liability on the part of the healthcare professionals for the death of the twin.

• Liability of healthcare professionals in medical emergencies.
• Burden of proof on the injured parties.
• Equitable assessment of damages and evaluation difficulties.