Cass. Civ., Ord. No. 17554/2020: Reflections on Medical Liability and Non-Pecuniary Damage

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 17554 of 2020 represents an important intervention in the field of medical liability and the assessment of non-pecuniary damage. The Court examined the issue concerning the adequacy of the healthcare treatments received by a patient, which led to significant complications. In this article, we will analyze the key points of the decision, highlighting the legal implications and consequences for the parties involved.

Context of the Judgment

The case originated from a lawsuit filed by C.M. and F.G. to obtain compensation for damages suffered by their minor daughter F.M.M. due to inadequacies in the healthcare treatments received during a surgical procedure. The Court of Appeal of Naples, in an initial phase, had recognized compensation but had excluded the liability of some healthcare professionals and reduced the requested amounts.

• Liability of the Local Health Authority (ASL) and the involved doctors.
• Assessment of non-pecuniary damage for the parents.
• Exclusion of damage for the minor daughter.

The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasized the importance of evaluating damage not only in economic terms but also in terms of family emotional bonds.

Analysis of the Grounds for Appeal

The appellants raised several grounds to challenge the judgment of the Court of Appeal, particularly regarding the assessment of the liability of the head nurse B.M. and the assessment of non-pecuniary damage. The Court addressed these grounds, highlighting that B.M.'s omission liability had not been adequately proven and that the presented evidence did not demonstrate the negligence necessary to establish compensable damage.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that non-pecuniary damage must exceed a minimum threshold of tolerability, as established in previous case law, to be compensable. Therefore, the suffering of the patient's husband, although severe, did not reach this threshold.

Damage to the Minor Daughter

A crucial point of the judgment concerns the non-recognition of the damage suffered by the minor daughter F.M.M. The Court held that no damage related to the loss of the potential possibility of having a larger family could be found. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this part of the judgment, stating that the emotional bond between siblings is a value protected by the legal system and that the impossibility of creating it constitutes a prejudice.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 17554 of 2020 by the Court of Cassation offers important insights into medical liability and the compensation of non-pecuniary damage. It highlights the need for a balanced assessment of evidence and damages, taking into account not only economic aspects but also emotional relationships within the family. The Court's orientation could influence future similar cases, requiring greater attention to family ties in the assessment of non-pecuniary damages.