Medical Liability and Non-Pecuniary Damage: Commentary on Judgment no. 26303 of 2019
Judgment no. 26303 of 2019 by the Court of Cassation offers important insights into professional liability in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding non-pecuniary damages and the concept of loss of chance. The legal case involved M. F. B., who, having died from metastatic melanoma, saw his heirs contest the hospital's liability for a diagnostic error.
The Case and the Court's Decision
The Court of Appeal of Catania had initially excluded the healthcare professionals' liability, holding that the diagnostic error had not affected the patient's chances of survival. The Court highlighted that, even with a correct diagnosis, no different therapies would have been implemented than those already planned. However, it recognized damage due to worsening suffering and quality of life, awarding compensation for temporary disability.
The Court ruled that the delay in diagnosis would not have altered the prognosis, as the pathology was already in an advanced stage and would not have benefited from alternative treatments.
Analysis of Grounds for Appeal and Causation
The appellants raised numerous grounds, including an alleged failure to examine decisive facts, but the Court rejected these claims. It emerged that, according to legal principles, the burden of proof regarding causation rests with the injured party, who must demonstrate that the medical error actually caused damage. The Court confirmed the absence of a causal link between the diagnostic error and the fatal outcome, emphasizing that, even with a timely diagnosis, effective treatments would not have been implemented.
Implications of the Judgment
- Strengthening of the principle of the burden of proof on the patient
- Clarification on the concept of loss of chance: it is not enough to prove an error, but it is necessary to prove the actual loss of opportunity
- Importance of technical consultations to ascertain causation
In conclusion, judgment no. 26303 of 2019 underscores how crucial it is for patients to demonstrate not only the negligence of healthcare professionals but also the direct impact of such negligence on their health. The Court drew attention to the difference between immediate damage and a mere possibility of improvement, highlighting how a diagnostic error, while relevant, does not automatically lead to compensation for "loss of chance."
Conclusions
In summary, the Cassation Court's judgment offers a clear and detailed perspective on medical liability, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to support claims for compensation. It serves as a reminder for lawyers dealing with healthcare liability to exercise prudence, highlighting the importance of a well-structured defense strategy supported by technical evidence.
