Healthcare Liability and Loss of Chance: An Analysis of Cass. No. 28993 of 2019

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 28993 of 2019 represents an important reference point in matters of healthcare liability and damages compensation. In this case, the Court examined the appeal filed by the heirs of a patient who died following a surgical procedure, analyzing the aspects of healthcare professionals' liability and the issue of the loss of therapeutic chances. The judgment offers significant insights regarding the causal link and the burden of proof in medical-legal contexts.

Context of the Judgment

The case concerned a claim for damages by the heirs of V.M., who died after an operation to remove a tumor. The Court of Appeal of Milan had initially rejected the claim for damages, excluding a causal link between the operation and the death. The appellants contested this decision, highlighting the erroneous application of the principle of medical contractual liability and the lack of adequate consideration of the causal link.

The Court of Cassation reiterated the importance of proving the causal link between the conduct of healthcare professionals and the damage suffered by the patient, paying particular attention to the loss of therapeutic chances.

Analysis of the Grounds for Appeal

The appeal was based on four grounds, including the violation of the principles of medical liability and the issue of informed consent. The Court deemed some grounds inadmissible, emphasizing that the causal link between the operation and the death could not be proven with certainty. In particular, the grounds relating to the loss of chance were analyzed in light of scientific evidence and the court-appointed technical consultancy, which had established that even timely intervention would not have guaranteed the patient's survival.

Consequences of the Judgment

The Cassation judgment highlights how healthcare liability must be assessed not only in terms of non-performance but also with regard to the concrete possibility of an improved outcome. In this case, the Court excluded the compensability of the loss of chance, emphasizing that the possibility of survival was not statistically appreciable. This approach further clarifies the concept of loss of chance, establishing that concrete proof of the possibility of a better outcome is necessary for its compensation.

• Importance of technical consultancy in assessing the causal link.
• Need for concrete evidence for loss of chance.
• Clarity on patients' rights and informed consent.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28993 of 2019 offers a clear and detailed view of healthcare liability, outlining the criteria for establishing the causal link and assessing the loss of chance. It represents an important reference point for legal professionals and patients, emphasizing the importance of transparency and correct information in the doctor-patient relationship.