Professional Liability and Damages Compensation: Commentary on Judgment Cass. Civ. no. 5641/2018

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 5641 of 2018 represents an important reference point in the field of healthcare professional liability. It addresses the issue of compensation for damages caused by diagnostic errors and their quantification, highlighting the complexities related to proving the causal link and quantifying the damage.

The Case and the Judges' Decisions

In the case under examination, the Court reviewed the compensation claim filed by the relatives of a patient who died due to a diagnostic delay. The Court of Rome had initially granted the claim, recognizing liability on the part of both the Clinic and the doctors involved. However, the Court of Appeal subsequently modified the decisions, denying the causal link between the diagnostic error and the patient's death.

The Court excluded the doctors' liability, holding that the death was attributable to the illness itself, not to professional negligence.

This decision raised important questions about the distinction between loss of chance damage and death damage. The Court of Cassation, in reviewing the appeal, confirmed that the compensable damage must be identified as the premature loss of the parental relationship and not merely the loss of a chance of survival.

Principles of Compensation

The judgment reiterated that for the compensation of non-pecuniary damage, various factors must be considered, including:

• The nature of the suffering endured by the relatives;
• The loss of affection and relationships;
• Funeral expenses and medical care incurred.

The Court had quantified the biological and moral damage based on equitable criteria, taking into account the severity of the suffering and the prematurity of the death. The Court of Cassation upheld the appellants' objections regarding the quantification of the damage and requested a reassessment upon referral.

Conclusions

Judgment Cass. no. 5641 of 2018 emphasizes the importance of a correct interpretation of the causal link in professional liability cases. It also signals the need for equitable compensation of damages, taking into account the specifics of the case. This ruling will have a significant impact on future case law regarding healthcare liability and damages compensation, highlighting the need for greater attention to the rights of patients and their families.