Healthcare Liability and Burden of Proof: Commentary on the Ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, Order No. 12585 of 2024
The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 12585 of 2024, addresses a case of particular relevance concerning healthcare liability, examining the delicate issue of the burden of proof in situations of medical malpractice. In this article, we will explore the details of the ruling and the implications it carries in the context of Italian civil law.
The Case Under Examination
The case involves the compensation claim filed by A.A. and B.B. against ASL No. 2 Lanciano Vasto Chieti following the death of their newborn children, C.C. and E.E., which occurred due to infections contracted in the hospital. In particular, the Court of Chieti had only partially accepted the request, acknowledging the responsibility of the healthcare facility for the death of C.C., while the appeal by ASL had been upheld concerning E.E.
The peculiarity of the case justifies the compensation of expenses at this level, considering that the ward was found to be infected and there had been other deaths of newborns.
The Reasons of the Court of Cassation
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal filed by the parents, highlighting various critical points. Firstly, the Court emphasized that ASL, in its appeal, specifically contested the presence of infected catheters and tubes. The appellants failed to demonstrate that such devices were sterile, which led to an inadmissibility assessment of their arguments.
Secondly, it emerged that the appellate judge made a distinction between the cases of C.C. and E.E. based on scientific data. The latter were not adequately contested by the appellants, who failed to demonstrate a causal link between the health conditions and the deaths.
Implications for the Right to Health
This ruling highlights some fundamental issues concerning the right to health and the responsibility of healthcare facilities. The parents found themselves in a difficult position, as the burden of proof regarding the incorrect actions of ASL fell upon them. Italian regulations, particularly Article 2697 of the Civil Code, establish that anyone wishing to assert a right must prove the facts that constitute its foundation.
- The contractual liability of ASL requires proof of non-fulfillment by the facility.
- The principle of "more likely than not" could be applied in similar situations, but the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove liability.
- The importance of medical documentation and its integrity in demonstrating any negligence.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 12585 of 2024 offers significant insights for understanding the dynamics of healthcare liability in Italy. It underscores the importance of the burden of proof and the difficulties citizens face in pursuing their rights in complex contexts such as healthcare. The decision highlights the need for greater attention to the management of evidence in medico-legal contexts, so as to ensure an adequate level of protection for patients and their families.
