Medical Professional Liability: Commentary on the Cassation Court Ruling No. 21245 of 2012
The ruling No. 21245 of 2012 by the Court of Cassation represents an important pronouncement regarding medical professional liability. The case in question concerns the appeal filed by B.C. and T.A. against the Liquidation Management of the dissolved USSL of Rho, following the death of their relative, B.A. The Court addressed crucial issues related to the causal link and the possibility of compensation for loss of chance.
The Context of the Case
The matter originates from the claim for damages for the death of B.A., which occurred due to an alleged diagnostic error and an omission of intervention by the healthcare professionals. Initially, the Court of Milan rejected the claim for compensation, a decision confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellants then turned to the Cassation, which annulled the ruling with a referral, emphasizing the importance of examining whether there was a diagnostic error and whether the patient had reasonable chances of survival.
The loss of chance is not a mere factual expectation, but a distinct asset, legally and economically susceptible to independent evaluation.
The Court's Arguments
In the 2012 ruling, the Court reiterated that, to ascertain medical liability, it is necessary to demonstrate a material causal link between the conduct of the doctor and the harmful event. In this case, the Court established that even with a timely diagnosis, B.A.'s chances of survival would have been minimal, around 10%. Therefore, it was not possible to attribute responsibility to the hospital entity. The Court also noted that the loss of chance, considered as a concrete possibility of achieving a positive outcome, must be expressly requested in the appeal, and cannot be automatically inferred.
Implications of the Ruling
- Clarity on liability criteria: The Court clarified that the causal link in civil matters has a lower threshold of probability compared to that in criminal cases.
- Recognition of loss of chance: This ruling emphasizes the importance of recognizing loss of chance as a compensable damage, provided it is explicitly requested.
- Relevance of technical consultancy: The evaluation of evidence and expert opinions plays a crucial role in the decision-making process.
Conclusions
The ruling No. 21245 of 2012 by the Cassation has had a significant impact on the jurisprudence regarding healthcare professional liability. It clarifies that, to obtain compensation, it is essential to demonstrate not only the negligent conduct of the doctors but also the causal link connecting that conduct to the harmful event. Furthermore, the issue of loss of chance must be adequately formulated and motivated in the appeal, so that the judge can examine it. This ruling represents an important step towards greater protection for patients and accountability for health professionals.
