The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, No. 29760 of October 12, 2022, offers interesting insights into medical liability and the statute of limitations for damage compensation. In this case, the appellant, A.A., had suffered a traffic accident that led him to undergo surgical interventions, during which, according to him, a neurological injury was caused by the medical staff. The Court had to decide whether the right to compensation was already prescribed, considering the moment when the appellant should have perceived the damage.
The Court of Imperia had rejected the request for compensation due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, establishing that the appellant should have perceived, with ordinary diligence, the injury sustained already at the time of the second surgical intervention. The Court of Appeal of Genoa confirmed this decision, stating that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment when the damage can be perceived and assessed by the patient, as established by Articles 2935 and 2947 of the Civil Code.
The Court stated that the reconstruction of the facts is reserved for the judge of merit, who has the task of evaluating the evidence and deciding based on the elements presented in court.
The Court of Cassation declared the grounds for appeal presented by A.A. inadmissible, considering that the criticisms put forward did not highlight a violation of legal norms, but rather an alternative interpretation of the facts. In particular, the appellant argued that the judge had failed to consider relevant medical documentation, but the Court reiterated that the evaluation of merit rests with the first and second instance judges.
This ruling represents an important confirmation of the principles related to medical liability and the prescription of rights to compensation. It emphasizes how crucial it is for the patient to be attentive and responsive to their health conditions, as the law protects the right to compensation only if the damage has been perceived in a timely manner. The Court of Cassation, therefore, reiterates the necessity for active vigilance on the part of the patient, encouraging them not to overlook signs of discomfort that could give rise to the right to compensation.