Medical Liability and Damage Compensation: Supreme Court No. 21511/2024
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court No. 21511/2024 offers an interesting point of reflection on the responsibility of healthcare professionals in emergency situations, such as in cases of twin pregnancies. The Court addressed relevant issues regarding the actions of doctors and the causal link necessary for the compensation of damages suffered by patients. In particular, the case in question involved the death of one of the twins and the serious health conditions of the other, with the parents seeking compensation for the responsibilities attributed to the healthcare professionals.
The Case and the Court's Decision
In the specific case, the Court examined the compensation request made by the parents of two twins, one of whom was stillborn and the other with severe disabilities, following a delayed cesarean intervention. The parents argued that a timely intervention could have saved the deceased twin and reduced the damages of the surviving twin. However, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had excluded the liability of the healthcare professionals for the death of the first twin, stating that the conditions he had contracted would have ultimately led to his death.
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is up to the injured party to prove the causal link between the breach and the damage suffered.
Liability and Burden of Proof
A central aspect of the ruling concerns the burden of proof. According to the Court, the parents, as plaintiffs, had the obligation to demonstrate not only the breach by the healthcare professionals but also that such breach was the cause of the damage suffered. The Court thus rejected the arguments of the appellants, emphasizing that the technical consultancy had highlighted that, even in the event of a timely intervention, the second twin would have still suffered severe damages.
Critiques of Damage Assessment
Another issue raised by the parents concerned the assessment of damages, which they believed had been conducted inadequately. The Court confirmed the position of the lower courts, specifying that the equitable assessment of damages was legitimate, given the difficulties in determining the exact extent of the prejudice. Furthermore, the Court found that the assessment of moral damages was unfounded, as there was no liability of the healthcare professionals for the death of the twin.
- Liability of healthcare professionals in cases of medical emergencies.
- Burden of proof on the injured parties.
- Equitable assessment of damages and evaluation difficulties.
