• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Civil Cassation No. 22136 of 2022: Reflections on Professional Responsibility and Damage Compensation

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 22136, issued on July 13, 2022, offers an important opportunity for reflection on professional responsibility in the healthcare sector and the proper compensation for non-economic damages. The Court addressed central issues regarding the burden of proof and damage compensation, establishing principles that could influence future medical litigation.

The Context of the Ruling

The case in question involved a patient, P.A., who suffered damages following cosmetic surgery procedures. The Court of Appeal of Florence confirmed the responsibility of the companies involved, establishing that they had violated the duty of information and were required to compensate for the damages. However, the crucial issue emerged from the Court's decision regarding the compensation for legal expenses and the personalization of the damage.

The failure to rule on the litigation expenses constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to effective judicial protection.

Principles of Responsibility and Damage Compensation

The Court reiterated that the compensation for non-economic damages must follow equitable criteria and that the judge is required to adequately justify their decisions. In particular, it was emphasized that the lack of a ruling on a part of the claim, such as in the case of legal expenses, constitutes a defect of omitted ruling. This is a fundamental principle in civil law, which guarantees the completeness of judicial protection.

  • The Court accepted the grounds for appeal regarding the violation of Articles 91 and 112 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code.
  • The applicability of recent regulations on damage compensation was confirmed, even for events that occurred before their enactment.
  • The obligation of adequate justification by the judge was underscored, especially concerning the personalization of the damage.

Conclusions

This ruling represents an important affirmation of patient rights and a guide for legal professionals in handling cases of medical responsibility. The emphasis on the need for clear justification and the importance of adhering to procedural norms serves as a significant reminder for all legal operators. With this ruling, the Cassation not only clarifies the regulatory framework but also provides useful insights for the training and professional development of lawyers.