Professional liability in the healthcare sector: analysis of judgment Cass. civ. n. 23918/2006

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 23918 of 2006 represented an important reference point for professional liability in the healthcare sector. This case involved a doctor, a clinic, and a patient who suffered damages following a surgical procedure. The judgment highlighted several aspects concerning the liability of both the doctor and the healthcare facility, emphasizing the link between diagnostic error and contractual liability.

The case under review

The context of the judgment concerns the claim for damages filed by P.A., the patient, against Dr. L.G. and Villa Tiberia Clinic. The plaintiff complained of damages resulting from a surgical procedure that, in her opinion, had been performed negligently, leading to serious physical and psychological consequences. The Court of Appeal of Rome, in partial reform of the first-instance judgment, ordered the clinic and the doctor to pay jointly and severally, recognizing their liability for the incorrect diagnosis and the lack of post-operative surveillance.

Legal principles established

The Court affirmed that the clinic's liability also exists for the actions of a non-employee doctor, if these were chosen by the patient and operate within the facility.

The Court clarified that professional liability is contractual in nature and that the doctor must guarantee an adequate level of diligence. In this case, the violation of professional obligations was ascertained through technical consultations, which highlighted a diagnostic error and poor post-operative management. The decision of the Court of Cassation confirmed that the diagnostic error that occurred during hospitalization generated joint and several liability between the doctor and the clinic, thus establishing a principle of protection for the patient.

Implications of the judgment

This judgment had a significant impact on case law regarding medical liability. Some key points include:

• The liability of the healthcare facility for the actions of doctors operating within it, even if they are not employees.
• The need for correct information to the patient regarding the risks of the procedure.
• The importance of the causal link between negligent conduct and the damage suffered by the patient.

The Court reiterated that biological damage and moral damage must be adequately compensated, considering the specificity of the case and the suffering endured by the victim.

Conclusions

Judgment Cass. civ. n. 23918/2006 offers an important reflection on liability in the healthcare sector. It reiterates the principle that the protection of the patient's health and rights must be guaranteed through adequate surveillance and professionalism on the part of healthcare professionals. Healthcare facilities must therefore carefully monitor the activities of doctors operating within them, ensuring an adequate level of care.