Ordinary Jurisdiction and Health Services: Commentary on Ordinance No. 17054 of 2024

The recent intervention of the Court of Cassation with ordinance no. 17054 of June 20, 2024, provides important clarifications on jurisdiction in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding the payment for services provided to non-self-sufficient patients. This decision fits into a complex legal context, where property issues and contractual dynamics between healthcare facilities and patients' families play a central role.

The Context of the Ruling

The Court examined the case of a healthcare facility that requested payment for services provided to a non-self-sufficient elderly person, based on a hospitalization contract signed by a family member acting as a guarantor. The crucial element of the decision was the recognition of ordinary jurisdiction for disputes of a property nature. The Court established that such claims, related to the payment for healthcare services, fall under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, excluding any involvement of the Public Administration (P.A.) or the exercise of discretionary powers.

Healthcare services - Hospitalization under convention - Payment of compensation - Jurisdiction of the ordinary judge - Existence - Foundation. The claim proposed by a healthcare facility for payment of the compensation for healthcare services rendered to a non-self-sufficient elderly person under a hospitalization contract signed by a family member as a guarantor, considering the substantial petitum of the claim made, falls within the scope of disputes with merely property content belonging to ordinary jurisdiction, without the relevance of any intervention power of the P.A. to protect general interests, nor the involvement of the exercise of discretionary-evaluative powers related to the determination of compensation, and without particular relevance to the convention regime between the local authority and the individual RSA (Residential Health Facility).

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has several practical implications, both for healthcare facilities and for patients' families. Among the main considerations are:

  • Clarity on jurisdiction: The recognition of ordinary jurisdiction allows for greater certainty in contractual relations between healthcare facilities and families.
  • Exclusion of P.A. intervention: The ruling reiterates that the P.A. cannot intervene in purely property matters, leaving room for free market and negotiations between the parties.
  • Protection of patients' rights: Families can better protect the property and contractual rights of their loved ones, without fears of bureaucratic interference.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance no. 17054 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining jurisdiction concerning healthcare services. It underscores the importance of ordinary jurisdiction in property disputes, highlighting the need for a more direct and transparent approach in managing hospitalization contracts. Healthcare facilities and families must be aware of these dynamics to effectively navigate the legal landscape and protect patients' rights.

Bianucci Law Firm