Professional Liability in Healthcare: Analysis of Cass. civ. n. 5489 of 2023

The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation no. 5489 of 2023 represents an important precedent in matters of professional liability within the healthcare sector. The decision, which involved Clinica Villa del Sole and other parties, focuses on how omissions in the care of a premature newborn contributed to severe and irreversible damages.

The Case Under Review

The case concerned a couple, D.D. and F.F., who, after the birth of their son E.E., encountered serious respiratory problems and a meningeal infection that led to disabling pathologies. They sued the gynecologist, the clinic, and the liquidating management of the USL, seeking compensation for damages, arguing that there was a causal link between the omissions and the harm suffered by the newborn.

The Court clarified that liability cannot be excluded based on mere statistical probability but must also consider the logic and concrete circumstances of the case.

Causation and Omissions

The Court of Appeal had initially recognized the joint and several liability of the clinic and the hospital, but the Cassation Court found the first ground of appeal to be well-founded, highlighting that the cause of the harmful event was the infection contracted at the hospital. The discussion thus turned to causation, emphasizing that the clinic's omissions had aggravated the newborn's condition, increasing the probability of contracting the infection.

• Omissive conduct of the clinic: transport of the newborn without adequate assistance.
• Increased probability of infection: estimated between 15-20% due to omissions.
• Recognition of liability: omissions cannot be ignored in the assessment of damages.

The Court affirmed that causality must be assessed not only based on statistical data but also through a logical and circumstantial analysis, as established in previous case law.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has significant implications for the healthcare sector, particularly regarding the liability of doctors and healthcare facilities. It underscores the need for careful evaluation of professional conduct and the consequences that can arise from omissions in patient care. Furthermore, the principle of causation is enriched with a logical dimension that goes beyond mere statistics.

Conclusions

The Court of Cassation, by upholding the first ground of appeal and rejecting the claim against the clinic, reiterated that each case of professional liability must be examined in depth, taking into account the specific circumstances and available evidence. This approach ensures not only protection for patients but also greater certainty for healthcare professionals.