Medical Liability: Analysis of Judgment Cass. civ., no. 25825 of 2024

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 25825 of 2024 addresses the delicate issue of professional liability in the medical field, with particular reference to informed consent and the causal link between the doctor's conduct and the damage suffered by the patient. The case concerns A. A., who, after a surgical procedure that led to serious consequences, sued the doctors and the healthcare facility to obtain compensation for damages. The decision of the Court of Cassation offers important insights for understanding the evolution of case law on medical liability.

The case of A. A. and the first-instance decision

A. A. had consulted several specialists for the treatment of sciatica. After receiving conflicting diagnoses, he opted for surgery which led to serious complications, including paralysis of the lower limbs. In the first instance, the Court of Lecce upheld the claim for compensation, recognizing medical liability for the erroneous choice to proceed with surgery rather than opt for conservative treatment.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal and the appeal to the Court of Cassation

The Court of Appeal of Lecce, however, overturned this decision, holding that the surgery had been performed correctly and that the damage suffered by A. A. was not foreseeable. This led the patient to appeal to the Court of Cassation, challenging the Court of Appeal's assessment regarding the causal link and the importance of informed consent.

The Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, highlighting errors in the Court of Appeal's causal reasoning.

The conclusions of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation found the grounds of the appeal to be well-founded, emphasizing that the Court of Appeal had erred in not considering the opinion of the other doctor who had advised against proceeding with the surgery. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the assessment of the causal link must focus on the harmful event suffered by the patient and not on the effectiveness of the intervention. The decision not to opt for conservative treatment could have avoided the permanent damage suffered by A. A.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 25825 of 2024 represents an important victory for patient rights in the context of medical liability. It highlights the importance of correct information provided by the doctor and the need to carefully assess the consequences of the therapeutic choice. This case also underscores how case law continues to evolve to protect patients' rights and ensure that medical practices are always conducted in compliance with best practices and patients' rights.