Order no. 16780 of 2024: Causal Link in Transfusion Damage

The recent Order no. 16780 of June 17, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue in the field of damages compensation, particularly concerning the consequences of infected blood transfusions. This ruling highlights how the recognition of the right to compensation provided for by Law no. 210 of 1992 can significantly influence the proof of the causal link in the context of a damages claim.

The Regulatory Framework of the Ruling

Law no. 210 of 1992 is fundamental in matters of compensation for damages arising from infected blood transfusions. Under this legislation, individuals who suffer harm due to blood transfusions can obtain compensation. However, demonstrating the causal link between the transfusion and the damage suffered is often complex. The ruling in question clarifies that the provision recognising the right to compensation is not an out-of-court confession but constitutes significant evidence.

The Principle of Causality

CAUSALITY (LINK OF) In general. In a damages lawsuit filed for harm arising from infected blood transfusions, the administrative provision recognising the right to compensation pursuant to Law no. 210 of 1992, while not constituting an out-of-court confession, is a serious and precise element, sufficient in itself to justify the use of presumptive evidence and to consider the causal link proven, through this means, not only against the Ministry of Health but also against other parties potentially liable for compensation (in this case, the liquidation management of a dissolved Local Health Authority), due to the nature of simple presumption of the means of proof.

This extract highlights the importance of the compensation provision as circumstantial evidence. It allows for the establishment of a simple presumption of the causal link, meaning that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the recognition of compensation can be used to demonstrate that the damage suffered is directly connected to the transfusion. This is particularly relevant not only for the Ministry of Health but also for other parties who may be held liable, such as former Local Health Authorities.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The consequences of this ruling can have a significant impact on future compensation claims by injured parties. It is crucial for lawyers specialising in damages law to consider this ruling in their work. Some key implications can be outlined:

• Recognition of the compensation provision as circumstantial evidence in proving the causal link.
• Possibility of extending compensatory liability to parties other than the Ministry of Health.
• Greater clarity in the procedures for claiming compensation for damages arising from transfusions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order no. 16780 of 2024 represents an important step forward in protecting the rights of individuals harmed by blood transfusions. By recognising the compensation provision as circumstantial evidence, the path to justice is facilitated for those who have suffered harm. Lawyers and legal professionals should pay close attention to this pronouncement to ensure that their clients' rights are adequately protected.