Professional Liability in Healthcare: Analysis of the Cass. civ. n. 5489 of 2023
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation n. 5489 of 2023 represents an important precedent in the matter of professional liability in the healthcare sector. The decision, which involved the Villa del Sole Clinic and other parties, focuses on how omissions in the care of a premature newborn contributed to severe and irreversible damage.
The Case Under Review
The case concerned a couple, D.D. and F.F., who, after the birth of their son E.E., encountered severe respiratory problems and a meningitis infection that led to disabling conditions. They sued the obstetrician, the clinic, and the liquidation management of the local health authority, seeking compensation for damages, arguing that there was a causal link between the omissions and the harm suffered by the newborn.
The Court clarified that liability cannot be excluded on the basis of mere statistical probability, but must also consider the logic and concrete circumstances of the case.
The Causal Link and Omissions
The Court of Appeal had initially recognized the joint liability of the clinic and the hospital, but the Cassation found the first ground for appeal to be well-founded, highlighting that the cause of the harmful event was the infection contracted at the hospital. The discussion then focused on the causal link, emphasizing that the clinic's omissions had worsened the newborn's condition, increasing the likelihood of contracting the infection.
- Omissive conduct of the clinic: transport of the newborn without adequate assistance.
- Increased likelihood of infection: assessed between 15-20% due to the omissions.
- Recognition of liability: omissions cannot be ignored in the evaluation of damage.
The Court stated that causality must be assessed not only based on statistical data but also through logical and circumstantial analysis, as established in previous jurisprudence.
The Implications of the Ruling
This ruling has significant implications for the healthcare sector, particularly regarding the responsibility of doctors and healthcare facilities. It emphasizes the need for careful evaluation of professional conduct and the consequences that may arise from omissions in patient care. Furthermore, the principle of causal link is enriched by a logical dimension that goes beyond mere statistics.
Conclusions
The Cassation, accepting the first ground for appeal and rejecting the claim against the clinic, reiterated that every case of professional liability must be examined thoroughly, taking into account the specific circumstances and the available evidence. This approach ensures not only protection for patients but also greater certainty for healthcare professionals.
