Professional Liability and Damages Compensation: Analysis of Cass. civ., Section III, Order no. 25910/2023

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 25910 of 2023, offers significant insights regarding professional liability in the healthcare sector and the compensation of damages resulting from unsuccessful surgical procedures. In particular, the case at hand concerns a patient, A.A., who suffered serious complications after a mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery. The Court examined the correct quantification of biological and moral damages, shedding light on crucial aspects of medical liability.

The Case of A.A. and the Judges' Decision

A.A. had sued the Policlinico University Hospital Company, seeking compensation for damages suffered due to post-operative complications. The Court of Modena had initially granted the request, but the Court of Appeal of Bologna had confirmed the decision, reducing the compensation amount and denying the recognition of moral and existential damages. The patient therefore filed an appeal with the Court of Cassation, raising several grounds for appeal.

The Court highlighted that the assessment of moral damage cannot be automatically excluded from the compensation of biological damage.

The Legal Issues Raised

In her appeal, A.A. complained of violations of procedural and substantive rules concerning the quantification of damages. The Court upheld the third ground, relating to the failure to award moral damages, emphasizing that inner suffering must be assessed separately. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the injury to the appellant's psycho-physical integrity could lead to a presumption of moral damage, which could not be ignored.

• The Court confirmed that the assessment of non-pecuniary damage must be comprehensive.
• The importance of proving the loss of pecuniary chances was emphasized.
• The issue of proving moral damage must be addressed rigorously, taking into account documentary evidence.

Conclusions

The decision of the Court of Cassation represents an important precedent in matters of professional liability and damages compensation. It reiterates the importance of a comprehensive assessment of the harm suffered by the victim, highlighting that moral damage must be considered independently of biological damage. The ruling provides useful guidance for both legal professionals and doctors, emphasizing the importance of proper management of post-operative complications and communication with patients.