Health Care Liability and Causality: Commentary on Order No. 17171 of 2024

The ruling No. 17171 of June 21, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the topic of health care liability, particularly regarding the causal link and the concept of unreasonable risk. In this article, we will analyze the key points of this order, aiming to make its contents and legal implications understandable.

The Context of the Ruling

The controversy concerns the request for damages by a patient, D. (M. D.), against A. (C. P.). The specific case is centered on the delayed diagnosis of two benign tumors, which, although distinct, raise questions about the responsibility of the healthcare professionals involved. The order of the Court of Cassation addresses the issue of causality, recalling the theory of the purpose of the violated norm.

CAUSALITY (LINK) Theory of the purpose of the violated norm - Preconditions and scope - Hypothesis in the context of health care liability. When the unlawful act is constituted by the violation of rules aimed at preventing the creation of an unreasonable risk, liability extends only to harmful events that represent the realization of that risk. (In this case, related to the claim for damages to health resulting from the delayed diagnosis of two benign tumors, completely independent of each other, the Supreme Court confirmed the ruling of merit that excluded that the onset of the second could be causally related to the actions of the healthcare professionals, as the violated standard of care was intended solely to prevent the realization of the risk related to the occurrence of the first pathology, being based on the relative clinical picture, different from what would have required instrumental investigations aimed at identifying the other.)

Analysis of the Ruling

The ruling expressed by the Court clarifies that, in the presence of a violation of the rules intended to prevent unreasonable risks, the liability of the healthcare professional is limited to harmful events that concretely manifest the specific risk. This means that if the violation of the rules aims to prevent a certain type of damage, liability cannot be automatically extended to unrelated events.

In the case in question, the Court confirmed that the onset of the second tumor was not causally linked to the actions of the healthcare professionals, as the violation of the standard of care concerned solely the first pathology. Therefore, it is essential that health care liability be assessed with reference to the specific clinical context and the risks provided for by current regulations.

Implications for Health Care Liability

This order highlights some crucial points for legal practice in the health care field:

  • The necessity of a thorough analysis of the causal link between the unlawful act and the damage suffered by the patient.
  • The recognition that liability is limited to events that represent a concrete manifestation of the risk provided for by the violated norm.
  • The importance of a correct application of forensic medicine rules and good clinical practices in determining the liability of professionals in the sector.

Conclusions

In summary, order No. 17171 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding health care liability, establishing clear limits in relation to the causal link and the concept of unreasonable risk. This provides valuable guidance for professionals in the legal and health sectors, emphasizing the importance of a precise and contextualized assessment of liability situations. Knowing and understanding these principles is essential to ensure adequate protection of patients' rights and a correct application of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm