Order No. 16780 of 2024: The Causal Link in Damages from Blood Transfusion

The recent order no. 16780 of June 17, 2024, from the Court of Cassation addresses a highly relevant issue in the field of damage compensation, particularly regarding the consequences of transfusions of contaminated blood. This ruling highlights how the recognition of the right to compensation provided by law no. 210 of 1992 can significantly influence the proof of the causal link in the context of a compensation claim.

The Regulatory Context of the Ruling

Law no. 210 of 1992 is fundamental in the matter of compensations for damages resulting from transfusions of contaminated blood. Under this regulation, individuals who suffer damages due to blood transfusions can obtain compensation. However, proving the causal link between the transfusion and the damage suffered is often complex. The order in question clarifies that the decision to recognize the compensation is not an extrajudicial confession, but constitutes a significant piece of evidence.

The Principle of Causality

CAUSALITY (LINK OF) Generally. In the compensation judgment initiated for damages arising from the transfusion of contaminated blood, the administrative provision recognizing the right to compensation pursuant to law no. 210 of 1992, while not constituting an extrajudicial confession, represents a serious and precise element, sufficient on its own to justify the recourse to presumptive evidence and to establish the causal link, not only against the Ministry of Health but also against other parties that may be held responsible in terms of compensation (in this case, the liquidation management of a dissolved USSL), due to the nature of simple presumption of the means of proof.

This excerpt highlights the importance of the compensation provision as circumstantial evidence. It allows for the establishment of a simple presumption of the causal link, meaning that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the recognition of the compensation can be used to demonstrate that the damage suffered is directly connected to the transfusion. This is particularly relevant not only for the Ministry of Health but also for other parties that could be deemed responsible, such as former USSLs.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The consequences of this order may have a significant impact on future compensation claims by affected individuals. It is essential that lawyers specializing in damage compensation consider this ruling in their work. Some key implications can be outlined:

  • Recognition of the compensation provision as circumstantial evidence in proving the causal link.
  • Possibility of extending liability for compensation to parties other than the Ministry of Health.
  • Increased clarity in the procedures for filing compensation claims for damages arising from transfusions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 16780 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of the rights of individuals harmed by blood transfusions. By recognizing the compensation provision as circumstantial evidence, it facilitates the path to justice for those who have suffered damages. Lawyers and legal professionals should pay attention to this ruling to ensure that their clients' rights are adequately protected.

Bianucci Law Firm