Professional Liability: Analysis of the Judgment Cass. civ., Section III, Order No. 2152/2024

The judgment No. 2152 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation addresses a case of professional liability in the healthcare sector, emphasizing the distinction between negligence and loss of chance. In this case, the wife of a patient who died due to an aneurysm sought compensation for damages from the Provincial Health Authority of Trapani (ASP), giving rise to an important legal debate.

The Case and the Decision of the Court of Appeal

The patient, who arrived at the emergency room with severe symptoms, did not receive timely intervention that could have increased his chances of survival. In the first instance, the Marsala Court rejected the compensation claim, finding no evidence of negligence on the part of the doctors. However, on appeal, the Palermo Court overturned this decision, acknowledging the inadequate conduct of the healthcare professionals and accepting the request for compensation for loss of chance.

The Court of Appeal concluded that a timely intervention could have increased the patient's chances of survival, leading to the condemnation of the ASP to pay 250,000 Euros.

The Issue of Loss of Chance

A crucial aspect of the judgment concerns the type of damage recognized. The Court distinguished between medical liability and loss of chance, a legal concept that involves assessing the probability of a different outcome had negligence not occurred. This approach aligns with Article 2697 of the Civil Code, which establishes the principle of the burden of proof in matters of civil liability.

  • The patient had an aneurysm already in the rupture stage.
  • The failure to perform an urgent CT scan deprived the patient of survival chances.
  • The damage is not classified as direct liability but as loss of chance.

Critiques and Implications of the Judgment

It is interesting to note that the Court of Cassation partially accepted the ASP's appeal, criticizing the quantification of damage by the Court of Appeal. In particular, the calculation of a 40% chance of survival was deemed arbitrary and lacking adequate justification. This point underscores the importance of clear and logical reasoning in judicial decisions, in line with the principles established by Article 111 of the Constitution and Article 132 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 2152/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step in defining healthcare liability, highlighting the importance of timely medical intervention. The distinction between direct liability and loss of chance offers a new angle for reflection for legal experts and professionals in the field. The necessity for solid reasoning in judgments is a call for the quality of justice and the need to respond fairly to the compensation expectations of victims of medical errors.

Bianucci Law Firm