Healthcare Liability and Non-Pecuniary Damage: Commentary on Judgment No. 26303 of 2019
Judgment No. 26303 of 2019 by the Court of Cassation provides important insights into professional liability in the healthcare sector, particularly regarding non-pecuniary damages and the concept of loss of chance. The judicial case involved M. F. B., who, having died from metastatic melanoma, saw his heirs contest the liability of the hospital for a diagnostic error.
The Case and the Court's Decision
The Court of Appeal of Catania initially excluded the liability of the healthcare professionals, believing that the diagnostic error did not affect the patient's chances of survival. The Court highlighted that, even with a correct diagnosis, no therapies different from those already planned would have been implemented. However, it recognized damage from the worsening of suffering and quality of life, awarding compensation for temporary disability.
The Court established that the delay in diagnosis would not have changed the prognosis, as the condition was already in an advanced stage and would not have benefited from alternative treatments.
Analysis of Legitimacy Flaws and Causal Link
The appellants raised several issues, including an alleged failure to examine decisive facts, but the Court rejected these criticisms. It emerged that, according to legal principles, the burden of proof regarding the causal link rests on the injured party, who must demonstrate that the medical error actually caused damage. The Court confirmed the absence of a causal link between the diagnostic error and the fatal outcome, emphasizing that, even with a timely diagnosis, no effective therapies would have been implemented.
The Implications of the Judgment
- Reinforcement of the principle of the burden of proof on the patient
- Clarification on the concept of loss of chance: it is not enough to demonstrate an error; it is necessary to prove the actual loss of opportunity
- Importance of technical consultations to ascertain the causal link
In conclusion, judgment No. 26303 of 2019 emphasizes how crucial it is for patients to demonstrate not only the negligence of healthcare professionals but also the direct impact of that negligence on their health. The Court drew attention to the difference between an immediate damage and a mere possibility of improvement, highlighting how the diagnostic error, while significant, does not automatically entail compensation for "loss of chance."
Conclusions
In summary, the ruling of the Court of Cassation offers a clear and articulated view of medical liability, underscoring the necessity of concrete evidence to support claims for compensation. It serves as a cautionary note for lawyers dealing with healthcare liability, emphasizing the importance of a well-articulated defense strategy supported by technical evidence.
Bianucci Law Firm
We constantly follow regulatory and jurisprudential developments, offering updated analyses and innovative solutions. We share legal developments to foster a more informed legal culture.
Latest Articles
Categories
- administrative law (3)
- aesthetic damage (1)
- biological damage (1)
- bullying (3)
- burden of proof (1)
- case law (15)
- civil law (47)
- civil liability (40)
- civil_law (1)
- civil_liability (5)
- commercial law (1)
- compensation for damages (9)
- compensations (1)
- consumer law (1)
- contracts (1)
- Court of Cassation (1)
- Covid-19 (2)
- criminal law (5)
- criminal liability (1)
- Damage assessment (3)
- damage compensation (2)
- damages compensation (38)
- damages_compensation (10)
- employer_liability (1)
- employer_responsibility (1)
- European law (1)
- family law (4)
- family_law (3)
- financial law (1)
- health law (19)
- healthcare (2)
- healthcare law (1)
- healthcare liability (6)
- INAIL compensation (1)
- informed consent (2)
- inheritance law (1)
- insurance (5)
- insurance law (1)
- insurance_law (2)
- jurisdiction (1)
- jurisprudence (11)
- justice (1)
- labor law (21)
- labor_law (5)
- law of evidence (1)
- lease (1)
- legal expenses (1)
- liability (2)
- medical liability (13)
- medical malpractice (3)
- minors' rights (1)
- moral damage (3)
- neighboring rights (1)
- noise pollution (1)
- non-economic damage (1)
- Non-pecuniary damage (4)
- Occupational Disease (1)
- occupational diseases (4)
- occupational safety (1)
- occupational_diseases (1)
- prescription (1)
- prison system (1)
- private law (1)
- professional liability (19)
- property rights (1)
- protection of workers (1)
- protection of workers' rights (1)
- public administration (1)
- public administration liability (1)
- right to health (3)
- right to life (1)
- road accidents (5)
- self-determination (1)
- social security (2)
- social security law (1)
- statute of limitations (1)
- tax law (3)
- Tax litigation (1)
- technical consultancy (1)
- testimonial_evidence (1)
- tort law (4)
- tort liability (1)
- tourism law (1)
- wildlife (1)
- worker dignity (1)
- worker protection (1)
- workers' protection (1)
- workplace accidents (2)
- Workplace injuries (3)
- workplace safety (1)
Tags
Accident accident prevention law accidents accountant acoustic emissions active legitimacy art. 141 Insurance Code article 2087 civil code asbestos asbestos exposure biological damage blood transfusions burden of proof case law case_law Cassation Cassation ruling Catanzaro court catastrophic damage causal link childbirth civil law civil liability cohabitation compensatio lucri cum damno compensation compensation action compensation for damages compensation tables congenital malformations Consob Consumer Code contagion contractual liability corporate liability Court of Appeal Court of Cassation Court of Cassation 19744/2014 Covid-19 criminal law criminal liability damage assessment damage compensation damage evidence damages damages assessment damages compensation death diagnostic errors differential damage disability insurance dismissal emotional bond emotional bonds employer liability employer_liability equity evidence failure to supervise family law guidelines gynecologist HCV health law healthcare liability heating systems heirs hepatitis C virus I.N.A.I.L. iatrogenic damage iatrogenic injury INAIL income tax indemnity indemnity law informed consent injury from fall insurance insurance coverage insurance policies insurance policy intentional injuries joint liability judgment judgment 3767/2018 jurisdiction jurisprudence labor law landlord liability law law 194 legal expenses Legislative Decree 81/2008 legitimate reliance liability Lyell syndrome maintenance of public works malpractice Marche Region medical expenses medical liability medical malpractice medical negligence medical record mesothelioma Milan Court Milan ruling Ministry of Justice mobbing monetary penalty moral damage municipal liability Naples negligent arson newborn non-economic damage non-economic_damage non-pecuniary damage nosocomial infection nosocomial infections oath occupational disease occupational diseases occupational health package travel parental damage parental liability parental supervision passengers pension personal injuries personal injury pets premature birth professional liability property rights psychological suffering public administration public liability refusal of transfusion remedy Revenue Agency right to compensation right to health right to life road accident road accidents road traffic accidents ruling ruling 1361/2014 ruling 2023 ruling 5947 ruling Court of Naples safety safety of systems safety regulations self-determination settlement statute of limitations strepitus fori substitution Supreme Court Supreme Court 2023 Supreme Court ruling Supreme Court ruling 2023 surgical intervention survivor's pension survivors' pension tax law taxation technical consulting technical liability testimonial evidence tort liability traffic accident unjust detention unlawful occupation usufruct VAT water damage wildlife witness testimony Work work environment work-related liability. work-related stress worker health workers' rights workplace accident workplace accidents workplace injuries workplace safety