Biological Damage and Testimonial Evidence: The Court of Cassation with Order no. 15444/2025 Clarifies the Limits

In the complex landscape of civil law, the assessment of biological damage represents one of the most delicate and often controversial aspects. The Court of Cassation, with the recent Order no. 15444 of June 10, 2025, has provided an important clarification on the limits of testimonial evidence in this matter, reiterating the centrality of medico-legal objectivity. This ruling, presided over by G. T. and drafted by M. G., is of fundamental importance for all those involved in managing or suffering from a damages claim, particularly for personal injuries.

The Context of the Ruling: Medico-Legal Objectivity at the Forefront

The case that came to the attention of the Supreme Court concerned a dispute between A. (represented by lawyer F. V.) and I. (represented by lawyer V. P.), in which the Court of Appeal of Milan, with a decision of December 13, 2022, had declared a claim for compensation inadmissible. The issue revolved around the possibility for the injured party to prove, through witnesses, the occurrence of a pathological condition (in this case, panic attacks) not found by the medico-legal technical consultancy (CTU). The Court of Cassation was called upon to rule on the validity of such evidentiary approach.

The Core Principle: The Need for Objective Assessment

The Supreme Court, with the order in question, has reaffirmed a consolidated principle that is often challenged in legal practice. Biological damage, as defined by Article 139 of the Private Insurance Code (Legislative Decree 209/2005), is the injury to the psychophysical integrity of a person, subject to medico-legal assessment, regardless of the capacity to generate income. This implies that its existence and extent must be objectively ascertainable through scientific methodologies specific to forensic medicine. A mere subjective perception by the injured party or third parties is not sufficient.

For the purpose of compensation for biological damage pursuant to art. 139 c.ass., medico-legal objectivity is required, so the injured party cannot provide proof, through witnesses, of the occurrence of a pathological condition different from and in addition to that ascertained by the CTU. (In this case, the S.C. confirmed the lower court's decision which had excluded that the injured party could prove through witnesses that she suffered from panic attacks, a pathology not emerging from the consultancy).

This maxim crystallizes a fundamental concept: testimonial evidence cannot substitute for the lack of objective medico-legal findings. In the specific case, the injured party had attempted to demonstrate the presence of panic attacks through testimonies, a pathology that the technical consultancy had not detected. The Court of Cassation agreed with the lower court's decision, emphasizing that a witness, however close to the injured party, does not possess the scientific expertise to diagnose a pathology or to contradict the conclusions of a medico-legal expert who operated based on objective examinations and scientific protocols. The function of a witness is to report facts, not to make diagnoses or technical assessments.

Practical Implications for the Injured Party and the CTU

Order no. 15444/2025 has significant practical implications for anyone seeking compensation for biological damage. Here are some key points:

• Prevalence of the CTU: The findings of the technical consultancy assume a preeminent role in the assessment of biological damage. It is essential for the injured party to provide the CTU with all relevant medical documentation and to cooperate fully during examinations.
• Limits of Testimonial Evidence: Witness testimony can be useful for demonstrating aspects that are not strictly medico-legal, such as the consequences on the injured party's daily life (limitations in activities, changes in social habits), but not for ascertaining the existence or extent of a pathology contrary to objective medical evidence.
• Importance of Medical Documentation: From the earliest stages following the harmful event, it is crucial to collect complete and detailed medical documentation that can support the existence and evolution of injuries and related pathologies.
• Role of a Specialized Lawyer: Engaging a lawyer experienced in damages claims is fundamental to navigate complex procedures and to present a solid claim based on unassailable evidence.

Conclusions: The Need for a Rigorous Approach

Order no. 15444 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation strengthens the protection of the integrity of the compensation system, emphasizing the need for a rigorous and scientifically founded approach in the assessment of biological damage. This is not about downplaying the subjective suffering of the injured party, but about ensuring that compensation is anchored to objective and verifiable parameters. This principle aims to prevent abuses and to ensure that compensation is proportionate to the actual medico-legal prejudice suffered. For the injured party, the message is clear: the path to justice lies through solid medical evidence and qualified legal assistance.