Professional Liability and Prescription: Commentary on Cass. civ., Sez. III, n. 15239 of 2014

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation n. 15239 of 2014 addresses a crucial issue in the field of healthcare professional liability: the configurability of the crime of intentional injury in the absence of informed consent. In this article, we will analyze the key points of the ruling, the implications for healthcare professionals and patients, and the relevant regulations.

The Case and the Court's Decision

The case involved a surgical procedure performed on a child, R.M., which led to dramatic consequences, such as blindness. The Court of Appeal of Milan had already rejected the appellant's appeal, confirming the prescription of the compensation action, considering that the limitation period had expired for both the five-year and ten-year prescriptions.

Regarding civil liability from healthcare treatment and for the purposes of identifying the limitation period for exercising the compensation action, the crime of intentional injury cannot be hypothesized.

The Court noted that, despite the absence of informed consent, the procedure had been carried out for therapeutic purposes, thus excluding the configuration of the crime of intentional injury. This principle is based on established jurisprudence that differentiates between therapeutic acts and willful misconduct.

The Role of Informed Consent

Informed consent is a fundamental element in the doctor-patient relationship. According to Italian regulations, every healthcare treatment requires the consent of the interested party. Violating this principle can lead to civil liability and, in certain cases, criminal liability. However, the Cassation has clarified that the absence of consent does not automatically imply willful misconduct on the part of the doctor if the procedure was performed with the intent to treat the patient.

Implications for Healthcare Professionals

The ruling sheds light on the responsibility of healthcare professionals, highlighting the importance of documenting informed consent and always acting in the patient's best interest. The main implications are:

  • The necessity for clear and documented consent for every intervention.
  • The importance of educating patients about the risks and benefits of proposed interventions.
  • Legal protection for doctors who act in good faith and in accordance with the standards of the profession.

Conclusions

The ruling n. 15239 of 2014 of the Cassation represents an important step in defining professional liability in the healthcare sector. It clarifies that the therapeutic purpose and adherence to professional standards can exclude the configuration of serious crimes, such as intentional injuries, even in the absence of consent. However, it remains essential for healthcare professionals to ensure adequate informed consent, thereby protecting both the rights of patients and their own legal position.

Bianucci Law Firm