Professional Liability and Statute of Limitations: Commentary on Cass. civ., Section III, No. 15239 of 2014
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation No. 15239 of 2014 addresses a crucial issue in the field of healthcare professional liability: the classification of the crime of intentional injury in the absence of informed consent. In this article, we will analyze the salient points of the judgment, the implications for healthcare professionals and patients, and the relevant regulations.
The Case and the Court's Decision
The case concerned a surgical procedure performed on a child, R.M., which led to dramatic consequences, such as blindness. The Court of Appeal of Milan had already rejected the appellant's appeal, confirming the statute of limitations for the compensation action, considering that the limitation period had expired for both the five-year and the ten-year prescription.
In matters of civil liability arising from healthcare treatment and for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations for the compensation action, the crime of intentional injury is not conceivable.
The Court found that, despite the absence of informed consent, the procedure had been carried out for therapeutic purposes, thus excluding the classification of the crime of intentional injury. This principle is based on established case law that distinguishes between therapeutic acts and intentional conduct.
The Role of Informed Consent
Informed consent is a fundamental element in the doctor-patient relationship. According to Italian regulations, every healthcare treatment requires the consent of the interested party. The violation of this principle can lead to civil liability and, in certain cases, criminal liability. However, the Court of Cassation has clarified that the absence of consent does not automatically imply intentional conduct by the doctor, if the procedure was performed with the intention of treating the patient.
Implications for Healthcare Professionals
The judgment sheds light on the liability of healthcare professionals, highlighting the importance of documenting informed consent and always acting in the patient's best interest. The main implications are:
- Need for clear and documented consent for every procedure.
- Importance of informing patients about the risks and benefits of proposed treatments.
- Legal protection for doctors who act in good faith and in accordance with the rules of the art.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 15239 of 2014 by the Court of Cassation represents an important step in defining professional liability in healthcare. It clarifies that therapeutic purpose and adherence to professional rules can exclude the classification of serious crimes, such as intentional injury, even in the absence of consent. However, it remains essential for healthcare professionals to ensure adequate informed consent, thereby protecting both patients' rights and their own legal standing.
