Analysis of Judgment No. 16199 of 2024: Civil Liability and Omissive Conduct

Judgment No. 16199 of June 11, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, serves as an important reference point on civil liability for healthcare activities, particularly concerning omissive conduct. The ordinance reiterated the importance of the causal link in determining the liability of healthcare professionals, establishing precise criteria for assessing damages arising from omissions. This is a critical aspect, especially in a context where trust in healthcare services is fundamental.

Causal Link in Omissive Conduct

The maxim expressed by the judgment states that:

Omissive conduct - Causal link - Assessment - Criterion of logical probability - Scope - "More probable than not" criterion - Distinction. In matters of liability for healthcare activities, the assessment of the causal link in cases of omissive conduct must be carried out according to a criterion of logical probability, establishing whether the omitted due conduct would have been able to prevent, or not, the harmful event, taking into account all the findings of the specific case, based on a judgment anchored not only to the quantitative-statistical determination of event frequencies but also to confirmatory elements and the exclusion of alternative ones, available in the specific case; it is therefore not a different evidentiary criterion from that of "more probable than not," used in civil proceedings, but rather an expression of a substantial assessment of the material causal link.

This maxim clarifies that, in cases of omissive conduct, the judge must assess whether the omission of a specific behavior could have effectively prevented a harmful event. This is not just a statistical analysis but a comprehensive examination of the specific circumstances of the case. This approach is fundamental to ensuring fair justice, avoiding convictions based on assumptions or mere automatism.

Implications for Healthcare Professionals

The implications of this judgment for healthcare professionals are significant. In particular, it suggests that:

• It is essential to document every step of the clinical decision-making process.
• Continuous training and professional development can reduce the risk of omissions.
• Consultation with colleagues and specialists is useful to ensure that decisions are made based on the best available practices.

In a context of increasing attention to professional liability, having clear guidelines provided by jurisprudence becomes crucial to avoid litigation and protect one's profession.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16199 of 2024 represents a step forward in defining the criteria for liability in cases of omissive conduct in healthcare. It offers clear guidance on how to assess the causal link, emphasizing the importance of an approach based on concrete evidence and logical analysis. For healthcare professionals, understanding and applying these principles is not just a legal matter but an ethical responsibility towards patients and the community.